









Iff N I 



LIBRARY OF CX)NGRESS 




OOOIOOO'^ODS 



4^ 



'A 


, 1 


^•■^L 


^ 


• Ci' 


f f*' 


fi 


i-V 


< V) 




A'l 




.••^ 


iv 


t"'^ 


■^v 


> 


'it- 




^ '' 




*rr 


1 


&/ 


;?••*, 




Class _TTl^v2a 
Book._~^ 



o /■:' 



G)pyiiglit}{^_ 



CQEmiGHT DEPOSm 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 

New York 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER 

30-32 West 27th Street 

London 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 

Amen Corner, E.G. 

Shanghai 

EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Ltd. 

30 North Szechuen Road 



LEWIS THEOBALD 

HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP 
WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS 



BY 

RICHARD FOSTER JONES, Ph.D. 




COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1919 

All rights reserved 






Cop>Tight, 1919 
By Columbia Untversitt Press 



Printed from type^ March, 1919 



APR 23 1919 

©aA525224 



TO 

THE MEMORY OF 

MY FATHER AND MOTHER 

THIS BOOK 

IS 
DEDICATED 



This Monograph has been approved by the Department of 
English and Comparative Literature in Columbia University 
as a contribution to knowledge worthy of publication. 

A. H. THORNDIKE, 

Executive Officer 



PREFACE 

The purpose of this dissertation is two-fold: to give a 
biography of Theobald, and to estabUsh a thesis. With the 
exception of one or two written before 1728, none of the 
eighteenth century accounts of the scholar is in any way 
rehable, especially in matters touching The Dunciad. They 
all present the same picture of Theobald as is found in the 
variorum edition of Pope's satire, from which, indeed, the 
bulk of their information was derived. Early in the nine- 
teenth century John Nichols, in the second volume of 
Illustrations of Literature, produced a much longer and 
more accurate sketch of Theobald than had yet appeared, 
together with the major part of his voluminous correspond- 
ence with Warburton. Though Nichols showed signs of 
appreciating the critic's learning and scholarship, he con- 
tinued to accept as true many of the baseless charges 
advanced by Pope. The last century witnessed an amaz- 
ing contrast in the estimates placed upon Theobald; 
Shakespearean scholars, almost unanimously, asserted that 
he was one of Shakespeare's greatest editors, while the 
biographers and critics of Pope, still continuing to echo the 
latter's slanders, proclaimed the unfortunate man a dunce. 
Finally, John Churton ColUns, first in an essay called The 
For son of Shakespearean Criticism — which might better 
have been called The Bentley of Shakespearean Criticism — 
and later in the Dictionary of National Biography clearly 
estabhshed his greatness as a scholar. Yet even Mr. Collins 
did not attempt to refute many of Pope's accusations. 
This worthy task was accomplished by the late Professor 
Loimsbury in The Text of Shakespeare, an admirable work 



X PREFACE 

to which I am heavily indebted. By minutely investigating 
The Dunciad and its surroundings, Professor Lounsbury has 
given us a true and comprehensive account of its hero, lay- 
ing to rest, once and for all, the evil spirits loosed by Pope. 
To his biography I could have added little, had I not dis- 
covered a number of unpubUshed letters, written to Warbur- 
ton, which throw some light on the period following the great 
satire, and make clearer the later relations of the two men. 

The thesis that I attempt to uphold asserts that the basic 
principles of critical editing in English were derived directly 
from the method employed by Bentley in the classics. In 
his work on Shakespeare Theobald adapted this method to 
a new field, and in turn was followed by scholars who did 
not confine their labors to the great dramatist. I have not 
carried my discussion beyond that remarkable period of 
critical activity, the sixth decade of the eighteenth century, 
because by 1760 the method had become so prevalent that 
its connection with Theobald is no longer apparent. This 
fact explains why I have not mentioned some of the best 
known scholars of the latter half of the century such as 
Tyrwhitt and Ritson, both of whom admired Theobald and 
followed his lead. I think that it is necessary only to show 
that the method which Theobald derived from Bentley and 
handed on to succeeding scholars is the same in essential 
details as that employed now. 

This dissertation owes its being to Professor W. P. Trent. 
He first suggested the possibility of Bentley's influence on 
Theobald, and his abiding confidence in the thesis later 
sustained me through many discouragements. He also 
read both manuscript and proof, and made many criticisms 
compliance with which has added materially to the value of 
the book. I am also indebted to Professors A. H. Thorndike 
and E. H. Wright for reading the manuscript and making 
a nxmiber of helpful suggestions. Professor O. F. Emerson 
and Doctor D. H. Miles kindly read part of the manuscript 



PREFACE XI 

with results beneficial to the work, while my colleague, Mr. 
R. F. Dibble, went through the whole of the page proof. To 
the officials of the libraries of Columbia, Harvard, Yale, 
and Western Reserve universities, and also to the officials of 
the British Museum, I wish to acknowledge the obhgation 
of many courtesies. 

I wish pubHcly to express to my wife my heartfelt gratitude 
for her dear assistance. Besides performing the tedious and 
mechanical tasks necessary to pubUcation, she was ever 
ready with affectionate sympathy and intelligent criticism, 
allowing neither my efforts to lag nor my perseverance to 
fail. To my brother. Doctor E. H. Jones, I am happy to 
return thanks for most substantial aid in pubUshing this 
book. Finally, Mr. John J. Lynch of the Columbia Uni- 
versity Press has been of no small assistance to me in matters 
with which I was not famihar. 

R. F. J. 
Columbia University, 
January 25, 1919. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Theobald's Early Life 1 

II. The Rage for Emending 31 

III. Shakespeare Restored 61 

IV. The Period of the Dunciad 100 

V. The Edition of Shakespeare 156 

VI. Theobald's Later Life 193 

VII. The Progress op the Method 217 

appendix 

A. Bibliotheca 254 

B. Translation op Bentlet's Horace 256 

C. Some Unpublished Letters op Theobald 258 

D. A Chronological List op Theobald's Works .... 347 



Index 



357 



LEWIS THEOBALD 

CHAPTER I 
Theobald's early life 

In writing the life of a man like Theobald the biographer 
would like to take up the story at the point where his hero 
first raised himself above mediocrity, and proved worthy 
of a written biography. What precedes appears but a col- 
lection of few and scattered details, too trivial to arrest 
attention, too dry to arouse interest. To weave these un- 
inspiring facts into a narrative that will escape boring the 
reader to extinction is a task that sorely tries one's patience 
and ability. Yet the demands of modern research must 
justly be satisfied to the extent of leaving nothing half done. 
Nor is this the only reason for adopting such a course. A 
single great achievement, if kept in mind, induces interest 
and significance in events that otherwise would be sur- 
rendered to oblivion. 

On the other hand, it is not necessary to delve deep into 
the genealogical past, unearthing maternal and paternal 
ancestors, to show how this or that trait can be explained. 
It is sufficient for us to know that in the early part of 1688 
Lewis Theobald was born in Sittingbourne in Kent, where, 
according to a contemporary biography, his father was an 
eminent attorney.^ He was named after a friend of the 
family, Lewis Watson, Earl of Rockingham, who made 

1 "'About 1692,' says Nichols and the biographers, but he was 
baptized on the 2d of April, 1688, as the parish register testifies." — J. C. 
Collins, Essays and Studies, p. 312. 

Nichols' mistake is due to a wrong date, given in Giles Jacob's 



2 LEWIS THEOBALD 

his namesake companio^n to his son, Viscount Sondres, at 
a school conducted by the Rev. Mr. EUis at Isleworth in 
Middlesex. The instruction — and it must have been 
thorough — received here was improved by a sojourn passed 
under the roof of his kinsman, John Glanville of Broad- 
hurston, Wiltshire, at a time when he had ''but the In- 
digested Learning of a School-boy, and wanted Judgment to 
make Use of Those Talents I either owed to Nature, or the 
Benefits of my education." ^ It was in appreciation of this 
kindness that Theobald dedicated his first attempt at poetry, 
a Cowleyan Pindaric in praise of the union of Scotland and 
England — a sample of which is given us by the late Pro- 
fessor Lounsbury ^ — as well as his translation of Aris- 
tophanes' Clouds. 

At some date not later than 1708 Theobald removed to 
London, where he followed his father's profession. His 
practice, however, which was more profitable in the latter 
part of his life, was neither so interesting nor extensive as 
to prevent his engaging in various literary activities, the 
most noteworthy of which were translations. His knowl- 
edge of the classics was sufficient to recommend him to 
Bernard Lintot, ''a no inconsiderable patron of literature 
and an enterprising bookseller," who in 1713 paid Theo- 
bald five guineas for a translation of Plato's Phaedo.^ Earlier 
in the j^ear the translator had taken advantage of the great 
popularity of Cato to publish a fife of the Roman hero,^ 

Poetical Register, of the acting of The Persian Princess, in the preface 
to which Theobald said it was written and acted before he was nine- 
teen years old. The date given by Jacob is 1710. See Nichols, 
Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 707-708. 

2 Dedication to his translation of the Clouds, 1715. 

* Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. 

* Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul. Translated from 
the Greek by Mr. Theobald, 1713. 

« The Life and Character of Marcus Portiu^ Cato Uticensis: 
MDCCXIII, 



THEOBALD S EARLY LIFE 6 

and to push his advantage farther translated this dialogue 
of Plato, '4t being the very treatise, which Cato read no 
less than twice before he killed himself." 

The same year Theobald entered into a contract with 
Lintot to translate all of the tragedies of Aeschylus for the 
modest sum of ten guineas, a contract that developed into 
his most ambitious attempt in this kind of work. Be- 
ginning with the purpose of merely translating the Greek, 
by 1736 he was entertaining the idea of publishing the text, 
with notes and emendations, on the opposite page to the 
translation. Though none of the plays was published, evi- 
dence seems to show that the work was completed a year 
or two after the contract was made, for in a note to verse 
six of his translation of Eledra (1714) he says, ''I shall refer 
the reader for it [the story of lo] to my Prometheus of 
Aeschylus, which will shortly be published," while in the 
notes to his rendition of Oedipus (1714) he speaks of his 
translation of the Seven Captains against Thebes.^ Some 
eight or ten years later Theobald issued proposals to publish 
the tragedies by subscription, setting the date of pubHca- 
tion for April, 1724. At the end of Shakespeare Restored 
he found it necessary to apologize to his subscribers for the 
delay, offering as compensation the fact that he had been at 
additional expense in procuring copper plates for each volume, 
and that in his dissertation to be prefixed to the translation 
he designed a complete history of the ancient stage in all 
its branches. 

' Two selections from it were indeed published. The first, con- 
sisting of two passages, appeared in Theobald's periodical, the Censor. 
The second, entitled "The Siege From a Chorus of Aeschylus," appeared 
in The Grove, a miscellany compiled by Theobald in 1721. This seems 
to be all that was ever published, although later Dennis, in Remarks 
on the Dunciad, speaks of having seen a specimen. Giles Jacob is 
authority for the statement that Theobald completed the transla- 
tion of all seven tragedies. Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259. 



4 LEWIS THEOBALD 

With the success of Shakes^peare Restored and the conse- 
quent incentive to continue work on Shakespeare, Theobald 
must have found little opportunity for the farther prosecu- 
tion of the undertaking at this time. But no longer was 
this lapse allowed to pass unnoticed, ^lien The Dunciad 
was published, this line appeared, 

And, last, his own cold JEschylus took fire. 

and a note on the line in the editions of 1729 read : "He had 
been (to use an expression of our poet) about Aeschylus for 
ten years, and had received subscriptions for the same, but 
then went about other books." ' For such criticism Pope 
had only the specimen in The Censor upon which to base his 
behef. In a note to another line in The Dunciad he sought 
to disparage Theobald's translation,^ and continued his 
attacks in The Grub-street Journal. In one number Theobald 
is accused of bad faith ui the collection of subscriptions,' 
and in another he is warned of failure by being reminded of 
the poor success of his translation of Aristophanes.^"^ 

But he still persisted in his purpose, growing more ambi- 
tious as time went by. In his edition of Shakespeare ^^ 
he speaks of his forthcoming translation of Aeschylus, and 
in a letter to Warburton, March 5, 1734, he comments on 
errors in Stanley's edition, with the assurance that he sees 
a method of correcting the text on the basis of the corre- 
spondence of antistrophe and strophe. A few months later, 

' Bk, I, 1. 210. The note continues: "The character of this Tragic 
Poet is fire and boldness in a high degree, but our author supposes it 
cooled by the translation; upon sight of a specimen of which was 
made this Epigram, 

Alas! poor Aeschylus! unlucky dogl 
Whom once a Lobster kill'd, and now a Log." 

• Bk- ni, 1. 311 of the editions of 1729. 

» Gr>jb-streei Jcr^jmal, No. 59, October 6, 1730. 

" Idem, No. 37, September 17, 1730. 

" VoL 7, p. 44 



THEOB.VLD S EARLY LIFE O 

in a letter to Sir Hans Sloane, soliciting a subscription to 
his Aeschylus, he says that he has been ad^'ised to put on 
the opposite page to the translation the Greek text, which he 
thinks can be corrected with great certainty, especially 
since he is fortunate in ha^-ing a collation of the Laurentian 
manuscript made for him by Dr. Conyers ^liddleton. This 
enlargement of plan, to be sure, increased the burden of the 
undertaking, and we find Theobald showing signs of weaiy- 
ing. On February 12, 1734. he writes, ''By God's leave I 
mean to print that work off this ensuing summer." And 
again. October 18. 1735. he hopes ''in God" Aeschylus shall 
appear in the spring. But the only results of this enter- 
prise that are left us are the few selections mentioned above, 
some emendations contributed to a magazine of the day, 
and those of his notes written in his Stanley, which Bloom- 
field used in his edition of the Greek dramatist. 

Of Theobald's other translations we have more remains. 
In the spring of 1714 he entered into another contract with 
Lintot to translate the whole of the Odyssey, and the Oedipus 
Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, and Philodetes of 
Sophocles, together with explanatory- notes, into English 
blank verse. He also contracted to translate the satires 
and epistles of Horace into Enghsh rhjTne. For the trans- 
lations of Homer and Sophocles he was to receive fifty shil- 
lings for ever}' four hundred and fifty fines, whUe for Horace 
the price was one guinea for ever>' one hundred and twenty 
lines. ^ While Theobald may have translated the four 
tragedies mentioned above, only one, the Oedipus TyrannuSy 

^ "All these articles were to be p)erformed according to the time 
specified, under the penalty of £50 on the default of either party." 
Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 70S. 

In a footnote on this passage Nichols says, "These particulars 
appear from Lintot 's Accompt-Book : but the entry respecting the 
Odyssey has a Line drawn through it, as if the agreement had been 
afterwards canceled." 



6 LEWIS THEOBALD 

was published.^' The next year, however, Lintot pub- 
Ushed a translation by Theobald of a play of Sophocles, 
the Electra, not mentioned in the contract. ^'^ This was 
dedicated to Addison, whose friendship the translator en- 
joyed. 

By the same publisher there was issued a translation of 
Ajax ^^ which later biographers of Theobald have attributed 
to him. The only evidence for such an attribution seems 
to be a line in The Dundad, which reads 

And last, a little Ajax tips the spire. 

and a note on this line, ^'In duodecimo, translated from 
Sophocles by Tibbald." ^^ Jacob, in his Poetical Register, 
although mentioning the Oedipus and Electra, as well as the 
two plays from Aristophanes, makes no mention of a trans- 
lation of Ajax. Neither does Nichols in his account of 
Theobald. The Biographia Dramatica (1782) not only 
fails to attribute any such work to Theobald, but definitely 
states that the translation was made by Mr. Rowe, and 
on another page, that the Ajax is said, in the second volume, 
p. 190, of Hughes' letters, to have been translated by a Mr. 
Jackson. ^^ Hughes was in a position to know, inasmuch 
as he was associated with Rowe in a translation of the 
Pharsalia. In a hst of books printed for Lintot, found at 
the back of the translation of Electra, there is advertised 
a translation of Antigone and the notes to Ajax, both by Mr. 
Rowe. There is no record that Theobald was ever assisted, 

" Oedipus, King of Thebes: A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles, 
with Notes By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. 

^* Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. 
London, 1715. 

" Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greeks with Notes. London, 
1714. 

" Editions of 1729, Bk. I, 1. 42. 

" Biographia Dramatica, vol. 1, p. 5, and vol. 2, p. 253. 



or needed to be, in any of his translations.^* Since Pope^ 
in search of material for the Dunciad investigated its hero's 
past with some thoroughness, he must have learned of his 
adversary's translations for Lintot. Hence he would 
naturally suppose that an anon^nnous translation of one of 
Sophocles' plays, published at this time and by Theobald's 
publisher, came from the pen of his enemy. 

It is possible that Theobald translated all the plays con- 
tracted for. There is no evidence of the contract having 
been canceled. One of the translations was published, 
and a selection from another, the Philoctetes, appeared in 
The Grove under the title, ''Description of the Plague at 
Thebes, and Invocation of the Gods to their Assistance, 
from a Chorus of Sophocles." In the ''Publisher to the 
Reader," prefixed to the translation of Ajax, Lintot says, 

I have by me the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Eu- 
ripides, translated into English blank verse ; they are all, as I have 
been assured by several gentlemen of aUow'd judgment in these 
matters, very exactly done from the Greek. 

Then he continues to speak of the literalness of the transla- 
tions, and the critical and philological notes, adding, 

I have given the public the Ajax of Sophocles as a specimen of 
my undertaking. If they think fit to encourage it, I intend to give 
'em one every month, till I have gone through all the Greek 
Tragedies. 

It is almost certain that Theobald translated Aeschylus. The 
four tragedies of Sophocles he contracted to translate, plus 
his Electra, plus the Antigone, advertised as being by Mr. 
Rowe, and plus the Ajax, by Jackson and Rowe, give us 

" The single copy of this translation in the British Museum is 
entered in the catalogue under Sophocles, N. Rowe, and Jackson, as 

being translated by J., assisted by Mr. Rowe. But it is also 

entered under Theobald's name. 



8 LEWIS THEOBALD 

all the tragedies of Sophocles. Furthermore, we have 
Theobald's own statement that he had little time for any- 
thing but translation in and about 1714.^^ 

The success of the translations published must not have 
been such as to warrant Lintot in carrying out his ambitious 
undertaking. Perhaps Pope's translation of Homer, the 
proposals for which appeared in October, 1713, interfered 
with it also. The next April Theobald contracted with 
Lintot to translate the Odyssey, the publisher doubtless 
hoping to profit by the interest in Homer aroused by Pope's 
proposals. But in November, 1714, Lintot received, at a 
very high price, the contract for publishing the Iliad, the 
fulfillment of which must have left him little time or in- 
clination for any other of the classics. For his translations 
from Aristophanes, 1715, we find Theobald turning to 
another publisher. Later, with Tickell threatening a 
version of The Odyssey, it seems probable that Lintot put 
forth one book of Theobald's translation as a feeler.^^ Pro- 
fessor Lounsbury demolished the theory advanced by some 
that Theobald's rendition of the Odyssey accounts for his 
place in The Dunciad, but I can hardly agree with him in 
thinking the work was stopped because of lack of sub- 
«criptions.^^ It was begun by contract, and the appear- 
ance of one book was due, perhaps, to Lintot's desire to 
see if the publication of the whole would be worth while. 
Unfortunately there does not seem to be extant a copy of 
this production. It was, probably, in connection with 

13 "I am so deeply engaged in the Translation of Works of more 
Moment, that I had no Time to throw away in Amendments." Pref- 
ace to The Persian Princess, 1715. 

20 Nichols (Literary Anecdotes, vol. 1, p. 80) gives November, 1716, 
as the date of publication, while Pope says 1717 (Dunciad, 1729, note 
on Bk. I, 1. 106). Gibber agrees with Nichols. (Lives of the Poets, 
vol. 5, p. 287.) 

21 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 133, 134. 



THEOBALD S EARLY LIFE 9 

his translation of the Odyssey that Theobald in 1714 trans- 
lated a French treatise on the Iliad, an offshoot of the con- 
troversy in France between the ancients and moderns.^^ 
After breaking with Lintot, Theobald did not give up 
his idea of translating certain of the classics. He turned 
from tragedy to comedy, and in 1715 appeared his EngHsh 
versions of Aristophanes' Clouds and Plutus, the first dedi- 
cated to his kinsman, John Glanville, and the second to 
the Duke of Argyle.^^ In a prefatory discourse Theobald 
says, ''If these find an Acceptation sufficient to Encourage 
my Attempt, I have a Design on some of the rest, that 
have equal Charms of Humour and Sprightliness." No 
other comedy appeared, however. A contributor to the 
Grub-street Journal, in speaking of the folly of translating 
classic poets into EngHsh prose, remarks. 

And yet I am told that Mr. Theobald has a translation of even 
Aeschylus himself, whether in prose or verse I don't know, ready 
for the press; not deterr'd from the ill success his translation of 
Aristophanes had.^^ 

In later years when, owing largely to the influence of The 
Dundad, it had become the custom to sneer at Theobald, 
his translations were subject to further attacks. In 1742 
Henry Fielding and Wilham Young issued a translation of 
Plutus, in the preface to which it is insinuated that Theobald 

22 A Critical Discourse upon the Iliad of Homer: written in French 
by Monsieur de la Motte, a Member of the French Academy; and translated 
into English by Mr. Theobald. 1714. 

Professor Lounsbury (p. 132) comments on the scarcity of this 
work. A copy was advertised in a recent catalogue of P. J. & A. E. 
Dobell of London. 

^^ The Clouds. A Comedy. Translated from the Greek of Aristophanes. 
By Mr. Theobald. London, MDCCXV. 

' Plutus: or the World's Idol. A Comedie. Translated from the 
Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. 

^ Grub-street Journal, No. 37, September 17, 1730. 



10 LEWIS THEOBALD 

did not understand Aristophanes, and that his version was 
taken almost entirely from a French translation by Madame 
Dacier, issued in 1692.2^ 

I own we have more to answer to the lady than to Mr. Theobald 
who, being a critic of great nicety himself, and great dihgence in 
correcting mistakes in others, cannot be offended at the same 
treatment. Indeed there are some parts of his work, which I 
should be more surprized at, had he not informed us in his dedica- 
tion, that he was assisted in it by M. Dacier. We are not there- 
fore much to wonder, if Mr. Theobald errs a httle, when we find 
his guide going before out of the way. 

While it may appear significant that the only plays trans- 
lated by Theobald were those rendered into French by 
Madame Dacier, yet he showed a readiness to go on with the 
rest, had these first two plays succeeded. His later emenda- 
tions of Aristophanes prove conclusively that he was master 
of the Greek. In places he does follow the French rather 
closely, but in the dedication he admits as much, excusing 
himself on the ground that since he is trying to make his 
readers understand Aristophanes, he is entitled to all the 
help possible. All through their notes Fielding and Young 
sneer at Theobald as ''pious," ''M. Dacier's good friend," 
and the hke. When he refuses to be absolutely literal, as 
in the phrase " sharpen-eyed as an eagle," instead of ''as a 
lynx," they ridicule him for not translating correctly ; where 
his and Madame Dacier's translations agree, they accuse 
him of translating the French and not the Greek. What 
they translate "sweetmeats" and Madame Dacier "con- 
fitures," Theobald translates "sugar-plums" and is ac- 
cused of following the French. The whole attack is unjust 
and unsupported by a comparison of the French and English 
translations. Many of the words Theobald is accused of 

26 Cf. Professor Lounsbury's Remarks on Disraeli's doubt of Theo- 
bald's knowledge of Greek. Text of Shakespeare, p. 133. 



Theobald's early life 11 

taking over from the French may just as well have come from 
the Greek. 

Of the satires and epistles of Horace no translation ap- 
peared, and Theobald's only work in the Latin poets was 
a version of the first book of Ovid's Metamorphoses, a poet 
who was almost as popular as Horace. There is no copy 
of such a translation now, but Jacob mentions it, and John 
Dennis, while smarting under the appellation of ''Furius" 
which Theobald had imposed upon him in The Censor, 
speaks of the latter having "lately burlesqued the Meta- 
morphoses of Ovid by a vile Translation." ^e Inasmuch as 
circumstances largely controlled Theobald's literary activi- 
ties, this translation may have been a product of the interest 
in Ovid excited by Dry den and promoted by Garth. 

While Theobald's next work in the classics is not a trans- 
lation, it is well to consider it under that head. This is an 
historical romance garnered from Galen, Appian, Lucian, 
JuHan, and Valerius Maximus.^^ The author says he first 
thought of making a play of this subject, but after reading 
Corneille's Antiochus decided it would make a better narra- 
tive than drama. He treats the story rather freely, changing 
the parts he thinks necessary to make Christian readers 
better understand it. The last translation of Theobald, 
the Hero and Leander of the mythical Musaeus, appeared 
in The Grove, 1721. In this same miscellany appeared the 
selections from Aeschylus and Sophocles spoken of above, 
and also an imitation of the twenty-first idyl of Theocritus, 
entitled ''The Fisherman; A Tale." These contributions 
do not merit critical comment. 

A modern critic calls Theobald's translations meritorious, 
and speaks of the "free and spirited blanck verse" of the 

26 Remarks of Pope's Homer, p. 9; quoted in Nichols, Illustrations 
of Literature, vol, 2, p. 719. 

^ The History of the Loves of Antiochus and Stratonice: London, 1719. 



12 LEWIS THEOBALD 

version of Sophocles and the '' vigorous and racy colloquial 
prose" of the rendition of the two plays of Aristophanes.^^ 
But not many years after his death there was an attempt 
to depreciate the worth of his work. The effect of The 
Dunciad grew with the years, and Pope's slanders were 
perpetuated by Warburton and Johnson. In 1753 Thomas 
Franklin, Fellow of Trinity College and Greek Professor 
in the University of Cambridge, issued proposals for trans- 
lating Sophocles into English blank verse. These proposals 
were printed at the end of a rather long poem called Trans- 
lation,'^^ a satire upon translations and translators in general, 
praise being bestowed only upon Pope's Homer and Rowe's 
Pharsalia. But Theobald is especially marked for abuse, 
it being the custom then to consider him legitimate prey. 
Franklin places the blame for the low esteem in which 
translation was held on such translators as Theobald : 

The great translator bids each dunce translate. 
And ranks us all with Tibbald and with Tate. 

And he brings the aged accusation of pedantry against him : 

Or some dull pedant whose encumber'd brain 
O'er the dull page hath toil'd for years in vain. 
Who writes at last ambitiously to show 
How much a fool may read, how little know. 

Tis not enough that, fraught with learning's store, 
By the dim lamp the tasteless critic pore. 

But a champion rushes to the aid of the abused originals : 

Genius of Greece, do thou my breast inspire 
With some warm portion of the poet's fire. 
From hands profane defend his much-lov'd name; 
From Cruel Tibbald wrest his mangled frame. 

28 J. C. Collins, Essays and Studies, p. 276; and the article on Theo- 
bald in the Dictionary of National Biography. 

29 Translation: a Poem. By Thomas Franklin. London, 1753. 



13 

And in a note on this last passage : ''Tibbald (or Theobald) 
translated two or three plays of Sophocles, and threatened 
the public with more." ^^ Much pleasure seemed to be 
derived from misspelling Theobald's name, but Franklin 
was scholar enough not to find fault, as Fielding did, with 
his knowledge of Greek. 

Although Franklin's work is much better known, I do not 
think that there is much to choose between their transla- 
tions. The earlier translator differs from the later in that 
he is evidently trying to popularize the Greek drama, going 
to some pains to make the meaning of obscure passages 
clear to those not versed in the classics. In the two plays 
of Aristophanes he translates the idioms and phrases into 
the idioms and expressions of his own time to such an extent 
that he was accused, as we have seen, of incorrect transla- 
tion. 

While the translations represent the bulk of Theobald's 
work for this period, he also engaged in original composi- 
tion. In 1707 his first attempt at poetry appeared, a Pindaric 
ode on the union of Scotland and England. ^^ Six years later 
he published The Mausoleum, a poem written in heroic coup- 
lets and dedicated to Charles, Earl of Orrery.^^ T^ig lugubri- 
ous effort, stilted and affected, was composed in imitation 
of several of the classical poets, chiefly Ovid, with the im- 
itated passages subjoined, and is full of praise for Pope 
and Addison. In 1715 Theobald translated Le Clerc's 
observations on Addison's travels, prompted by his ad- 

3° In marked contrast to Franklin's estimate of Theobald's work 
stands that of the first of classical scholars in Uterary taste, Richard 
Person, by whom Theobald's translations "were highly esteemed." 
See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. BHss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137, note. 

31 Gibber gives 1707 as the date of this poem. Lives of the Poets, 
vol. 5, p. 287. 

^ The Mausoleum. A Poem, Sacred to the Memory of Her Late 
Majesty Written by Mr. Theobald. London, 1714. 



14 LEWIS THEOBALD 

miration for the subject of the treatise. ^^ An entirely dif- 
ferent motive is discernible in a poem he gave to the world 
about this time, which was written on the recovery of the 
Duke of Ormonde from a dangerous illness. ^^ 

This same year Theobald's most significant poem was 
published, The Cave of Poverty, ^^ in imitation of Shakespeare. 
A contemporary critic declared it to be excellent.^^ It 
seems to have found its way across the channel, and was the 
cause of an exchange of letters between Theobald and the 
Zurich professor of History and Politics, Johann Jacob 
Bodmer, who characterized it as a splendid poem, possessing 
not only the style of Shakespeare but his spirit itself .^^ This 
extravagant praise is worthy of notice when we remember 
that Bodmer, one of the forerunners of German Romanticism, 
''prepared the way for a new poetry of emotion and senti- 
ment." ^^ He translated Paradise Lost, and his Critical 
Disquisition on the Wonderful in Poetry, written in defense 
of Milton, brought about the feud with Gottschedd (who 
upheld French classicism), which resulted in the complete 
discomfiture of the latter. The unsoUcited praise of such 
a man is not to be underestimated. 

Professor Lounsbury has shown how plain an imitation 
of Shakespeare the poem is : 

33 Monsieur Le Clerc's Observations upon Mr. Addison's Travels 
Through Italy, etc. Also Some Account of the United Provinces of the 
Netherlands; chiefly with regard to their Trade and Riches, and a Par- 
ticular Account of the Bank of Amsterdam. Done from the French by Mr. 
Theobald. London, 1715. 

3* I have found no trace of this poem, but Theobald mentions it in 
his dedication of the Persian Princess to the Duchess of Ormond. 

36 The Cave of Poverty, A Poem. Written in Imitation of Shakespeare, 
By Mr. Theobald. London. 

36 Giles Jacob, Poetical Register, quoted in Nichols, Illustrations of 
Literature, vol. 2, p. 711. 

37 Appendix, p. 339. 

38 Calvin Thomas, History of German Literature, p. 211. 



Theobald's early life 15 

The truth is that the production throughout adopts and reflects 
Shakespeare's phraseology. There is frequently in it a faint 
echo of his style, and of the peculiar melody of his versification. 
Such characteristics could have been manifested only by one who 
had become thoroughly steeped in his diction, and especially in 
that of his two principal poems. These were so far from being 
well known at that time that they were hardly known at all.'^ 

He continues to show how Theobald uses the six-line stanza 
of Venus and Adonis, and points out the number of com- 
pound adjectives which he took directly out of Shakespeare's 
plays and poems. The use of compounds, however, he may 
have derived from the classics as well as from Shakespeare. 
In the essay prefixed to his translation of Hero and Leander 
he explains the use of compound epithets in the poem : 

Whether the Greek poem be as old as it is pretended, it was cer- 
tainly designed to be thought as old; and Compound Epithets 
were the darUng Labour of those Times, as is plain to observe 
from ten thousand Instances in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and in 
Aeschylus particularly, among the Tragicks. 

The poem strives somewhat after the crepuscular. It 
consists of one hundred and twenty-one stanzas of six 
iambic pentameters, and is divided into two parts. The 
first gives us a description of a terrible cave, with horrible 
pictures on all sides, where the Queen of Poverty harasses 
mankind. The place resembles Hades, and among its 
inhabitants Theobald is careful to include dissipated noble- 
men who failed to help needy men of letters. The second 
part describes two brass horns that collect all the sounds 
arismg from the woe of poverty, and send them resounding 
to the ear of the queen. The complaints, reflecting in a 
pale way the soliloquy in the third act of Hamlet, lament 
the shifts to which one is put, the neglect of merit,, and 
exaltation of vice. 

39 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 184. 



16 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Curse on the envious Fate, that tyes me down 
To Servile Ills my gen'rous Soul disdains! 
Curse on the Shifts my needy Age has known; 
The hated shifts which mighty Need constrains! 

O Comfort-Killing State! Heart-Wounding Grief f 

O Sorrows that admit no kind Relief. 

dull Ingratitude! dost thou not shame 

To let Desert be brow-beat, and despis'd, 

To let Oppression with Contempt and Blame 

Brand its fair Cheek, and keep true Worth Dispriz'd? 
Or let it bear the Whips and Scorns of Time, 
Be spurned by Insolence, and deem'd a Crime. 

Shakespeare is not the only writer imitated in the poem, 
for the description of Poverty and her cave resembles closely 
the second and eighth books of the Metamorphoses. Theo- 
bald may have been influenced by Spenser, yet the descrip- 
tions in the Faerie Queene are not so similar as those in Ovid's 
poem, and at that time Theobald was much more intimately 
acquainted with the Roman than with the Elizabethan 
poet. This part of The Cave of Poverty furnished Pope with 
a handle to his attack on Theobald's indigence in the open- 
ing of The Dunciad, where the Cave of Poverty and Poetry is 
mentioned. It could also have suggested to Churchill 
some of the descriptions in the Prophecy of Famine. 

The same year, 1715, there was published a key, which has 
been ascribed to Theobald, to the What D'ye Call It.^^ 
Professor Lounsbury calls attention to the fact that the only 
evidence we have for such an attribution is a note by Pope 
to an edition of his letters, 1735, where it is given to Griffin, 
a player, assisted by Theobald .^^ The evidence is indeed 
slight. But if Pope wished to father it upon his opponent, 

" A Complete Key to the last New Farce The What D'ye Call It. 1715. 
*^ Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 417. 



17 

why should he bring in the actor ? The work has no signifi- 
cance except in so far as the writer has been thought to 
attack Pope. Gay said the author called him a blockhead 
and Pope a knave, which statement, however, is a great 
exaggeration. While the author resents the satire on the 
plays of Shakespeare and Addison, he praises Pope's genius, 
and in no place abuses him.'*^ In the preface the derivation 
of the word '^ burlesque" and the reference to Dr. Bentley 
are in Theobald's manner. In the wide and various cita- 
tions from the plays of Shakespeare the author shows a 
knowledge of the dramatist wholly consistent with Theo- 
bald's later accomplishments. His comment on Othello's 
putting out the hght is somewhat similar to the note on the 
same passage in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare. The 
high praise of Addison and the reference to the jealousy of 
Dennis are in keeping with the pronounced opinions in 
The Mausoleum and The Censor. Nor is the evinced knowl- 
edge of the chorus of Greek tragedy beside the point. 

Early in 1715 Theobald began the publication of a tri- 
weekly periodical. The Censor, fashioned after the Spectator. 
This ran for thirty numbers, from April 11 to June 17. It 
then suspended publication until January 1, 1717, when it 
again appeared and continued to June 1, ending with the 
ninety-sixth number. Theobald attributed the failure of 
the undertaking to its following "too close upon the Heels 
of the inimitable Spectator.^' Many of its numbers deal 
with trivial subjects in a satiric fashion, but the humor is 
heavy and the satire weak. It follows the Spectator in its 
attacks on antiquaries, virtuosi, and pedants. Some of 

^ "These two lines are an excellent copy of the Author's Wit and 
Manners, Popery and Knitting are so admirably well put together, 
as things of equal Importance, that any man, who has but read the 
Celebrated Rape of the Lock, cannot be at a loss for the Author of 
these Lines." — P. 22. 



18 LEWIS THEOBALD 

the numbers, however, are devoted to the drama, it having 
been the author's plan to give one issue a week to a discussion 
of the stage, and they frequently have something to say about 
Shakespeare. This periodical also gives us an idea of Theo- 
bald's interest in the classics and classical scholarship, for 
discussions of the Greek drama are second only to those of 
Shakespeare. 

One would think that Theobald had fared badly enough 
at the hands of Pope and succeeding generations without 
being represented as the object of any more satires than 
those of which he is actually the butt. Yet an attempt has 
been made to find an attack on him in Parnell's Life and 
Remarks of Zoilus appended to a translation of the Batracho- 
muomachia, 1717. Goldsmith appears to be the original 
authority for the idea that the satire was written at the re- 
quest of Parnell's friends and directed against Theobald and 
Dennis. Mr. Aitken repeats the statement without giving 
any reasons for the onslaught. ^^ Mr. Seccombe follows 
him, though implying that the cause of the attack was the 
fact that the two writers were objects of Pope's aversion.^ 
A recent biographer of Dennis, Mr. Paul, says the satire 
was probably due to Theobald's attacking Three Hours after 
Marriage and to the fact that he was a good representative 
of needy authors. ^^ I do not know of any attack that Theo- 
bald ever made upon Three Hours, and besides, this play was 
not produced until 1717, while Zoilus was completed in the 
spring of 1715.^^ The basis of Mr. Paul's conjecture may be 
a letter from Pope to Parnell, 1717, where, after speaking 
of the criticism Three Hours had aroused, the writer adds, 
*'The Best revenge upon such fellows is now in my hands, 

" The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell, 1894, p. xlvi. 

" The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. IX, p. 188. 

« H. G. Paul, John Dennis, 1911, p. 93. 

*« Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 457. 



Theobald's early life 19 

I mean your Zoilus." The fact of the matter is that the 
original purpose of Zoilus was to anticipate criticism of 
Pope's translation of Homer. It was intended for the first 
volume of the Iliad, but since the author arrived in London 
too late, it was printed in the translation of the Odyssey. ^"^ 
Zoilus, I should conjecture, sprang out of Parnell's essay 
on Homer, in which the irascible ancient is held up to abuse. 
Pope, fearing criticism of his translation, perhaps because of 
his sUght knowledge of Greek, probably prompted Parnell 
to the undertaking in order to forestall hostile attacks. In 
a joint letter from Pope and Gay to Parnell, March 18, 1715, 
Gay speaks of the indignation the What D^ye Call It had 
aroused, and asks, ''Then where will rage end when Homer 
is to be translated? Let Zoilus hasten to your friend's 
assistance, and envious criticism shall be no more." ^^ El win 
and Courthope do not think it an attack on modern critics. 
If Pope had any particular critic in mind when he urged 
Parnell to write the treatise, I would hazard the guess that it 
was Bentley. Throughout this critic's long controversial 
career, Zoilus was the name most frequently apphed to 
him. As early as 1699 he had been so called. Furthermore, 
Parnell's description of Zoilus tallies so closely with that of 
Bentley given by the Christ Church Wits that it is difficult 
not to think the great critic was in Parnell's mind."^^ There 

^7 Idem, vol. 7, p. 457. 

*8 Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 464. 

*^ "But what Assurance can such as Zoilus have, that the world will 
ever be convinc'd agamst an estabhshed Reputation, by such people 
whose faults in writing are so very notorious? Who judge against 
Rules, affirm without Reasons, and censure without Manners? who 
quote themselves for a support of their Opinions, found their Pride 
upon a Learning in Trifles, and their Superiority upon Claims they 
magisterially make? Who write of beauties in a harsh Style, judge 
of Excellency with a Lowness of Spirit?" and so on. 

"But what appears extremely pleasant is, that at the same time 



20 LEWIS THEOBALD 

is nothing in the production satirically appropriate to 
Theobald at that time, and probably Pope had never heard 
of him. 

Theobald lost no opportunity of turning to his own 
account any passing interest of the day. In 1719 George 
Sewell, Theobald's friend and the future editor of a supple- 
mentary volume to Pope's edition of Shakespeare, produced 
his tragedy Sir Walter Raleigh, which enjoyed considerable 
success, reaching a fifth edition within three years. The 
same year Theobald wrote a life of Raleigh, a slight and 
incomplete tract of no intrinsic value, but significant in be- 
ing his first work dealing with the Elizabethan period. ^^ 

Two years later Theobald collected and pubhshed a 
volume of miscellanies,^^ which contained his translations 
from Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Musaeus, and a few of his 
poems ; two prologues, one spoken by Mr. Keene, the other 
occasioned by his death; and a poem. To Cloe, upon her 
Retreat at Fulham. The largest contributor was a certain 
Dr. Kennick, a glowing account of whom is given in the 
preface. The collection is more remarkable in that it con- 
he condemns the passage, he should make use of it as an Opportunity 
to fall into an Ample Digression on the various Kinds of Mouse-Traps, 
and display that minute Learning which every critic of this sort is 
found to show himseK Master of. This they imagine is tracing knowl- 
edge thro' its hidden Veins, and bringing Discoveries to daylight which 
time had cover'd over. Indefatigable and useless Mortals! who value 
themselves for knowledge of no consequences, and think of gaining 
Applause themselves by what the Reader is careful to pass over 
unread." 

5" Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh: London, 1719. Defoe, deeming 
Theobald's work unsatisfactory, himself undertook a slight sketch of 
Raleigh's career under the title An Historical Account of the Voyages 
and Adventures of Sir Walter Raleigh .... Humbly proposed to the 
South-Sea. [1720 but dated 1719.] 

^^ The Grove; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, etc. 
London, 1721. 



21 

tains Dr. Bentley's only attempt at verse, a poem entitled 
A Reply and dealing with the hardships incurred by scholars. ^^ 

From the very beginning of his career the future editor 
was interested in the drama. As early as 1708 his Persian 
Princess was acted at Drury Lane, when he was only twenty 
years of age.^^ The play was not a success, and in his pref- 
ace the dramatist speaks slightingly of it, but the fact that 
it was accepted by the only theater in London argues some- 
thing in its favor."* The author, however, thought it neces- 
sary to explain that since he was too deeply engaged in 
translating to try to amend it in any way, only the repeated 
importunities of friends forced him to publish it. The plot 
does not seem to be derived from any incident in Persian 
history, so that the play is one of Theobald's few original 
pieces. 

The same year that saw the publication of this drama wit- 
nessed Theobald's second attempt on the stage, which had 
no better success than the first, but which reflects in an un- 
favorable way on his reputation. This was a tragedy called 
The Perfidious Br other. ^^ In the preface to the published 
play the author states that the report that the whole per- 
formance belonged to Meystayer, a watch maker, was prev- 
alent among mechanics, that he did nothing but supervise, 
correcting an odd word here and there. He admits that the 

^2 Gibber attributes to Theobald a work entitled The Gentlemen's 
Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all Parts of Life in 12 mo. 1722. 

^3 The Persian Princess, or The Royal Villain. 12 mo. 1715. 4to, 

*1717. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708, following 

Giles Jacob, makes a mistake in saying it was not published until 1717, 

The precocity shown in this production gained Theobald some 
notoriety. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. Bliss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. 

*■* Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. 
,' ^^ The Perfidious Brother, A Tragedy; As it is Acted at the New 
Theatre in Little Lincolns-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Theobald. London, 
1715. 



22 LEWIS THEOBALD 

play was put in his hand by Mey stayer, but claims it was in 
such a condition that it required several months' work to 
make it presentable, so that he considered himself entitled 
to it. The following year the watch maker published his 
version of the play, with a dedication to Theobald, in which 
he speaks of his adversary in no uncertain tones. The 
latter made no reply. Both versions are wretched enough 
and the similarity is obvious, but since Meystayer's version 
was published after Theobald's, its evidential value is 
destroyed. What Theobald admits, however, is enough to 
condemn him for taking all the credit, or discredit, for the 
production. 

On December 10, 1719, Theobald's adaptation of Shake- 
speare's Richard II was performed at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 
and met with some success, being acted seven times. ^^ In 
his alterations he omitted Acts I and II, with the exception 
of some speeches which he transposed, and introduced a 
love story. Genest points out one absurdity into which 
Theobald fell, and thinks his ''additions are flat and his 
alteration on the whole is a very bad one ; but considerably 
more than half the play is Shakespeare's." ^^ Some of 
Theobald's lines seem to be very good ; in fact, they consti- 
tute the best poetry he wrote, and show clearly how closely 
he had studied Shakespeare. 

In the preface to this alteration Theobald states that 
his purpose was twofold : ''to interweave the many scatter'd 
Beauties into a regular Fable"; and to do Shakespeare 
"some Justice upon the Points of his Learning and Acquaint- 
ance with the Ancients." All his life he held to the belief 
that the dramatist had more classical learning than was 

^ The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre 
in Lincoln^ s-inn- fields. Altered from Shakespeare, By Mr. Theobald. 
London, 1720. 

" History of English Stage, vol. 3, p. 34. 



Theobald's early life 23 

generally accredited him, though his later discovery of 
Elizabethan translations was very disconcerting to this view. 
Here, however, Theobald argues that in Troilus and Cressida 
Shakespeare depended more upon Homer than upon Lollius 
or Chaucer, and that Timon shows the poet to have been 
familiar with Plutarch in the original. ^^ His ignorance of 
North's Plutarch and The Three Destructions of Troy, both of 
which he later discovered, shows that he had not dipped 
very deep into the literature accessible to Shakespeare. 
Yet he had broken ground in his life of Raleigh, and this 
attempt at proving Shakespeare's learning shows him ap- 
proaching the poet rather from a scholar's point of view 
than from that of a literary critic. 

Theobald's most persistent appearance on the stage was 
not in the legitimate drama. ^^ There arose during his life- 
time a new species of entertainment known as the pantomime. 
The first to claim credit for introducing these performances 
into England was John Weaver, a dancing master, who in 
1702 put forth a production. The Cheats of Scapin; or The 
Tavern Bilkers, of which he said that it was the first perform- 
ance on the English stage to carry on the story by dancing 
and motion only. Fourteen years later he produced The 
Loves of Mars and Venus, ^^ in imitation of the ancient pan- 
tomime and, according to his claim, the first to appear since 
the Roman Empire, This was rapidly followed by several 
others of similar names and nature — Perseus and Androm- 
eda, Orpheus and Eurydice, and Cupid and Bacchus. In 
1728 Weaver published a list of all the pantomimes, which 

^8 Theobald accepted "Lollius" in good faith. 

^^ Giles Jacob, in his Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259, speaks of Theo- 
bald having a tragedy, The Death of Hannibal, ready for the stage 
before 1720. It was never acted or published. 

*° This is probably the performance to which Gibber refers when 
he speaks of a succession of monstrous medleys following a story of 
Mars and Venus. 



24 LEWIS THEOBALD 

he divided into two classes, those '4n imitation of the Ancient 
Pantomime/' and those "after the manner of the modern 
Itahans." His own seem to have been chiefly of the first 
class, which consisted in relating some classical fable by 
motion and dancing, without any Harlequin entertainment. 
In 1716 John Rich opened his Lincoln's Inn Fields theater, 
where, in his competition with Drury Lane, he was forced 
to produce a new species of performance. At first this con- 
sisted of entertainments in the Itahan style introducing the 
conventional characters, Harlequin, Pantaloon, Columbine, 
and the like. As early as April, 1716, he appeared as Harle- 
quin in an unnamed production. Such entertainments he 
continued to give with some success until 1723, when he pro- 
duced The Necromancer or Dr. Faustus to outdo a pantomime 
of a somewhat similar title at Drury Lane.^^ His success 
was great, and from that time on pantomime continued to 
draw crowded houses, much to the disgust of the literati. 
Rich himself does not seem to have taken much pride in 
this sort of genius, and frankly admits that necessit}^ com- 
pelled him to take such a course. In the dedication to 
The Rape of Proserpine, 1726, the actor says : 

As for the other Parts, it might, perhaps, seem an Affectation in 
me to detain you with the History of the Antient Pantomime 
Entertainments, or to make a long Apology for the Revival of them 
at present. This much, however, may be said in their favor, that 
this Theatre has of late ow'd its support in great Measure to them. 
I own myself extremely indebted to the Favour with which the 
town is pleased to receive my attempts to entertain them in this 
kind; and do engage for my own part, that whenever the public 
taste shall be disposed to return to the works of the drama, no 
one shall rejoice more sincerely than myself. 

^^ "Rich had produced some little Harlequinades in the taste of 
the Itahan Night-scenes, but his genius does not seem to have blazed 
forth till about 1723." Genest, vol. 3, p. 155. 



Theobald's early life 25 

The typical Rich pantomime was a combination of the 
Harlequinade and Weaver's classical pantomime. Rich, 
however, reversed the order of things. Whereas in the 
continental performances of Harlequin the actors spoke, 
in the English pantomime it was all dumb show ; and while 
Weaver told his ancient fable by motion only, verse and 
song were used in Rich's entertainment. The backbone 
of this performance was a versified love story from Ovid 
or some other classical author, written in a most serious 
vein and interspersed with dances and songs, — in fine, an 
opera, — while between the divisions of the story comic 
interludes were supplied by the capers of Harlequin in an 
entirely separate plot which generally hinged on the courting 
of Columbine. The stage setting for both parts was most 
elaborate and surprising, the serious part being represented 
with most spectacular scenery, while the comic was carried 
out by means of ingenious devices for transforming scenes 
and objects. 

So prevalent became this type of pantomime that Rich has 
been called the father of English pantomime. Perhaps 
the opportunity for spectacular scenes led him to combine 
the two incongruous elements contained in the show, though 
Fielding says it was for the sake of contrast : 

This entertainment consisted of two parts, which the inventor 
distinguished by the names of serious and comic. The serious 
exhibits a certain number of heathen gods and goddesses who are 
certainly the worst and dullest company into which an audience 
was ever introduced; and (which was a secret known to a few) 
were actually intended so to be in order to contrast the comic 
part of the entertainment and to display the tricks of Harlequin 
to the better advantage. This was perhaps not very civil of such 
personages, but the contrivance was nevertheless ingenious enough 
and had its effect. And this will now plainly appear if instead of 
serious and comic, we supply the words duller and dullest; for 



26 LEWIS THEOBALD 

the comic was certainly duller than anything before shown on the 
stage and could be set off only by that superlative degree of dull- 
ness which composed the serious. ^^ 

In the constructing of these pantomimes Theobald was 
very closely associated with his friend, John Rich. He 
furnished the serious or vocal parts described above, from 
which, as a rule, pantomime, took their names. In all he 
contributed the verse to nearly a third of Rich's repertoire. 
Previously, however, he had composed several trivial pieces, 
all presented at Lincoln's Inn Fields. One was a one-act 
opera, Pan and Syrinx, produced in 1717. In 1718 he fur- 
nished the songs and a little of the poetry to Elkanah Settle's 
The Lady's Triumph, as well as the masque of Dedus and 
Paulina, which occurs in the last act of Settle's produc- 
tion.^^ Two of the songs were also inserted in the opera 
Circe. 

Theobald began his pantomimes with Harlequin Sorcerer, 
with the Loves of Pluto and Proserpine, 1725, which drew 
crowded houses even after its revival at Covent Garden 
in 1753. The same year, 1725, saw the production of The 
Rape of Proserpine, which was extremely popular and con- 
sequently called forth the wrath of the critics of this species 
of literature.^^ The following year appeared Apollo and 
Daphne, or The Burgo-Master Tricked, and after intervals of 
four years each appeared, respectively, Perseus and Androm- 
eda and Merlin; or the Devil of Stone-Henge. This last 

®2 Tom Jones, Pt. 5, Chap. 1. Fielding satirized pantomime in 
Tumbledown Dick, or Phaeton in the Suds, 1744. 

^3 James Miller, in his Harlequin-Horace, 1731, p. 9, has reference 
to this when he says, 

"Why should to modern Tibbald be denied 
What antient Settle would have own'd with Pride V" 
" Pope, Dunciad, Bk. 3, 1. 310 and note. Grub-street Journal, No. 
98, November 18, 1731. James Miller, Harlequin-Horace, p. 27. 



Theobald's early life 27 

was the only one to appear at Drury Lane, and is the most 
wretched of these dull productions.^^ 

Theobald's last pantomime, Orpheus and Eurydice; an 
Opera, was produced at Covent Garden February 12, 1740, 
but had been published the preceding year. Genest says 
this entertainment "was very successful . . . the descrip- 
tion of it occupied the bills for a considerable time, and the 
plays were advertised without the characters." ^^ It was 
revived in 1747, and again in 1755, when it ran for thirty-one 
nights. It was again presented in 1768, and in 1787 was 
performed by royal command. ^^ As an example of Theo- 
bald's work in this field it may be well to quote a synopsis 
given by Mr. Broadbent in his history of the pantomime.^^ 

The following was the argument and the curious arrangement of 
the scenes: — Interlude I. Rhodope, Queen of Thrace, practising 
art magic, makes love to Orpheus. He rejects her love. She is 
enraged. A serpent appears who receives Rhodope's commands, 
and these ended, ghdes off the stage. Here the comic part begins. 
In the Opera (as practically it was) a scene takes place between 
Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice's heel is pierced by the ser- 
pent, behind the scenes. She dies on the stage — after which the 
comic part is continued. Interlude II. Scene: Hell. Pluto 
and Orpheus enter. Orpheus prevails on Pluto to restore Eury- 
dice to him. Ascalox tells Orpheus that Eurydice shall follow 
him, but that if he should look back at her before they shall have 
passed the bounds of Hell, she will die again. Orpheus turns 
back to look for Eurydice, Fiends carry her away. After this the 
comic part is resumed. Interlude III. Orpheus again rejects 
Rhodope's solicitations. Departs. The scene draws, and dis- 

*^ Some of the pantomimes were unusually long-lived. The Rape of 
Proserpine, for instance, has been performed once or twice in this century. 

66 Genest, vol. 3, p. 618. 

6^ See A History of Pantomime, by R. J. Broadbent, p. 160. 

68 Idem, p. 158. Broadbent's account was taken from Genest, 
vol. 3, pp. 618-620. 



28 LEWIS THEOBALD 

covers Orpheus slain. Several Baccants enter in a triumphant 
manner. They bring in the lyre and chaplet of Orpheus. Rho- 
dope stabs herself. The piece concludes with the remainder of 
the comic part. 

The above pantomime was the cause of an attack on both 
Rich and Theobald. The number of well-known love stories 
of the ancients, which formed the basis for the serious parts 
of these entertainments, was rather limited ; and so, with the 
increasing demand for pantomime, repetition was inevitable.®^ 
In December, 1738, John Hill, an apothecary, published an 
opera, Orpheus, in the preface to which he accuses Rich of 
being about to produce an opera stolen from a rejected copy 
of his.'^^ The next year Rich published his pantomime, in 
the advertisement to which he speaks of Hill's '' chimerical 
suggestions." He followed this up with a detailed defense 
of his conduct in Mr. Rich's Answer to the many Falsities 
and Calumnies Advanced by Mr. John Hill, Apothecary, and 
Contained in the Preface to Orpheus, an English Opera, as he 
calls it. Published on Wednesday the 26th of December last. 
Hill waited some time and came back in 1741 with his An 
Answer to the many Plain and Notorious Lyes Advanced by 
Mr. John Rich, Harlequin; and contained in a Pamphlet, 
which he vainly and foolishly calls, An Answer to Mr. HilVs 
Preface to Orpheus. If judgment is based upon these two 
productions. Rich seems to be in the right. He goes very 

^^ There were some five operas and pantomimes under the title of 
Orpheus and Eurydice. 

''^ This was the notorious Sir John Hill, half quack and half scientist, 
whose life was a series of controversies: with the Royal Society because 
they would not admit him to membership; with Fielding, who replied 
in the Covent Garden Journal; with Christopher Smart, who honored 
him with The Hilliad ; and with several actors including Garrick — in 
all of which he invariably got the worst of it. "Hill was a man of 
unscrupulous character, with considerable abilities, great perserver- 
ance, and unlimited impudence." — D. N. B. 



Theobald's early life 29 

minutely into detail, produces many testimonies, points 
out many dissimilarities between the two works, and in- 
dulges in little abuse. Hill pursues the opposite course, 
and while producing no proofs makes up the deficiency with 
constant revilings. These are especially severe against 
Theobald, whom he accuses of stupidity and impertinence 
and styles Rich's poet, friend, and privy counselor. He calls 
Pope to witness against Theobald, and refers his readers 
to the Bathos and The Dunciad. Rich says that he was in- 
formed by Hill that the latter had one thousand pounds 
put up by a gentleman, to back him. By the praise of Pope 
and abuse of Theobald, one is led to wonder whether the 
former was still persisting in his efforts to injure the hero of 
The DunciadJ^ 

The tremendous popularity of these performances was 
due to spectacular scenery, unusual costumes, and the tricks 
and ''stunts" done on the stage. They were a combina- 
tion of the New York Hippodrome and Ringling Brothers' 
Circus. And just as a circus is considered vulgar, and every 
one goes, so pantomimes were considered very low, and 
drew crowded houses. The sanctimonious upholders of the 
legitimate drama lifted their hands in holy horror at such a 
desecration of the stage, and bewailed the passing of the 
drama. Pantomimes could find no defenders but the box 
office. Even those responsible for their production — 
composer, producer, and actor — spurned their own handi- 

'^ Another production of similar nature, though not a pantomime, 
and the last to come from Theobald's hand, appeared in 1741, entitled 
The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, Betwixt 
Signor Capacdo, a Director from the Canary Islands; and Signora 
Dorima, a Virtuosa. The story, which, like Double Falshood, is founded 
on the first part of Don Quixote, is contained in three short acts, be- 
tween which are two comic interludes written to ridicule the ItaUan 
opera. These last, Genest says, possess much greater merit than the 
serious part. The opera was never performed. 



30 LEWIS THEOBALD 

work. Gibber detested them, Rich apologized for them, 
and Theobald had nothing to say in their favor.^^ The last 
named had least right to be proud of this popularity, for 
his part in the entertainments was universally considered 
wretched. 

His persistent appearance in this low species of dull verse 
emphasizes one fact that stands out prominently in his life 
previous to Shakespeare Restored. With a pronounced pref- 
erence for Hterary over legal affairs, law being his nommal 
profession, he did not discover his true interest or powers, 
and was forced to resort to all kinds of shifts in earning a 
livelihood, 

The hated Shifts which mighty Need constrains! 

Besides his various poems of eulogy and dedications ad- 
dressed to popular noblemen, such works as the lives of Cato 
and Raleigh show that he was ever on the alert to turn to 
his own account any success of the day. Although again 
and again he shows his close study of Shakespeare, it is 
doubtful whether he would ever have discovered the work 
for which he was fitted had he not seen a possible oppor- 
tunity to ride to success on the interest created by Pope's 
edition. Furthermore, he lacked originality. Most of 
his dramatic ventures were adaptations or rewor kings. His 
best poem is an avowed imitation. It is in his translations 
that the Theobald of this period is seen at his best. In 
these he seemed to take more pride than in other produc- 
tions, and his interest in the Greek drama was genuine 
and intelligent. 

'2 See the dedication of Shakespeare Restored to John Rich, a 
remarkable performance, where Theobald apologizes for dedicating 
his work on Shakespeare to the man who had done so much to drive 
him from the stage, on the ground that he had received some financial 
assistance from Rich. 



CHAPTER II 

THE RAGE FOR EMENIDNG 

Theobald marks the beginning of a new era in Shake- 
spearean textual criticism. Adequate recognition of his 
services has been slow in coming, but now his reputation 
is fairly well estabUshed. In the study of his work on 
Shakespeare, it has been the custom to approach the subject 
from the tradition of the text.^ This is the more logical 
and profitable process as far as the mere results of scholar- 
ship are concerned, but if attention is turned to the method 
by which these results were obtained, it becomes necessary 
to depart from the beaten path and seek a source elsewhere. 
The direction from which I have seen fit to approach this 
first great editor is from the classical scholarship of his day. 

Classical scholarship prior to the nineteenth century 
has been divided into three periods : the ItaHan, the 
French or Polyhistorical, and the English and Dutch.^ The 
chief concern of the Italians was with the form of the classics. 
Politian, Poggio, Erasmus, and others studied Latin and 
Greek writers with the end in view of reproducing these 
models in their own productions. They were not so much 
interested in the accuracy or content of texts as they were 
with literary form. The members of the French school, 
on the other hand, turned their attention to the subject 

^ The Text of Shakespeare, its history from the publication of the 
quartos and folios down to and including the publication of the editions 
of Pope and Theobald. By Thomas R. Lounsbury, LH.D., L.L.D., 
New York, 1906. 

2 See Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 2, p. 1; R. C. 
Jebb, Richard Bentley, pp. 202, 203; and Jebb's article on Bentley in 
the D. N. B. 



32 LEWIS THEOBALD 

matter of the classics. Viewing antiquity as a whole, they 
sought to discover and preserve the history, thought, and 
manners of the Greeks and Romans. The most important 
productions of this period were J. Scaliger's investigations 
in the chronology of the ancients and Casaubon's work 
on their life and manners.^ 

The English and Dutch school began a few years previous 
to the eighteenth century, and had for its concern historical, 
literary, and verbal criticism, especially the latter.^ The 
father of this school was Richard Bentley.^ Never have 
the pursuits of scholars been so dominated by a single in- 
fluence as those of the eighteenth century were dominated 
by Bentley. A study of the scholarship of this period 
resolves itself chiefly into a consideration of this one man. 
He turned the attention of scholars in a new direction, 

3 Textual criticism was not ignored in these two periods. In the 
preparation of manuscripts the early scholars and monks exercised 
their emending ingenuity whenever they saw fit, tacitly introducing 
their conjectures into the text. (See W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction 
to Latin Textual Emendation, 1896, p. 1.) Two of these early scholars, 
NiccoU (1363-1437) and Laurentius Valla (1407-1457), achieved some 
valuable results. In 1567 Robortelli laid the foundation of textual 
criticism in his De Arte sive Ratione Corrigendi Antiquos Libros Dis- 
putatio, nunc primum a me excogitata, while in the same period J. 
Scahger pointed the way to a sounder method of emendation founded 
on the genuine tradition of the manuscript. See Sandys, op. cit., 
vol. 1, pp. 43, 69; vol. 2, pp. 142, 201. 

James Harris {Philological Inquiries, 1781, Pt. 1, p. 32) says that at 
first the business of this early textual criticism "was painfully to col- 
late all the various Copies of authority, and then, from amidst the 
variety of Readings thus collected, to estabHsh by good reasons either 
the true, or the most probable.'' In 1582 Victorinus published thirty- 
eight books of Variae Lectiones, while from 1559 to 1585 Muretus pub- 
lished nineteen books. Yet during these two periods emphasis was 
not placed on verbal criticism, and no method was estabUshed. 

* Sandys, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1. 

* R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 216; J. H. Monk, Life of Richard 
Bentley, vol. 1, p. 15; and article on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 33 

causing them to pattern their pursuits after his.^ He es- 
tabUshed a new attitude toward the classics by placing a 
pronounced stress upon one phase of their study, and he 
inaugurated a method that was to have a great influence 
with succeeding scholars. Owing to his success in this new 
and individual field, a shifting of values took place ; so great 
was this shift and so permanent was Bentley's influence, 
there was little diminution in the value attributed to textual 
criticism throughout the whole of the eighteenth century. 
That this century to-day stands for a period of textual 
criticism, not only in the classics but also in English, is due 
almost entirely to the tremendous impetus given this par- 
ticular study by Bentley and his critical method. 

Although Bentley 's first great work in the classics was 
concerned with literary and historical criticism,^ he soon 
departed on a path more essentially his own — verbal 
criticism.^ His interest in this phase of scholarship was 
apparent from the very beginning. The pages of his Epistle 
to Mill and his "Immortal Dissertation" are strewn with 
emendations.^ No matter what argument he is engaged 

^ I have reference chiefly to English scholars, although his influence 
was almost as pronounced on some of the continental scholars, es- 
pecially the Dutch. 

^ His Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris is considered the first 
piece of scientific research. 

8 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 215. 

^ "He seemed gifted with an intuitive sagacity not merely to detect 
error, but to trace the source of it — words which seem thrown together 
at random, receive sense and meaning at one touch of his wand. . . . On 
the whole it might be fairly asserted of the Epistle to Mill, that no work 
of classical criticism had yet appeared since the revival of letters, 
which in the same number of pages contained such variety of informa- 
tion, so many happy emendations, or which so clearly showed that a 
new school of criticism was about to commence, which would own 
Bentley as its legitimate parent." — De Quincey's review of Monk's 
Life of Bentley, Quarterly Review, vol. XL VI, p. 125. 



34 LEWIS THEOBALD 

upon, he never hesitates to stop and correct a faulty passage 
he may have occasion to quote. The fragments he contrib- 
uted to Graevius' edition of Callimachus are brilUantly 
corrected in many places, while the three critical epistles 
attached to Kuster's Aristophanes are composed entirely 
of emendations on that poet.^° 

Bentley may well be considered the first modern scholar, 
for the elements underlying his scholarship are still operative. 
First there was a massive erudition gained from most ac- 
curate and extensive reading of books and manuscripts. He 
is reported to have said that he would be ready to die at 
eighty, since by then he would have read everything worth 
reading. A glance through any of his notes and a notice 
of the many authors therein cited will convince any one 
of the extensiveness of his erudition. But this erudition 
could not have been of much use had it not been in working 
shape. Scholars like Joshua Barnes had learning, but they 
did not know how to handle it. Bentley systematized his 
knowledge. He constructed a Hexapla, in the first column 
of which he inserted every word of the Hebrew Bible, and 
in other columns the corresponding words in Chaldee, 
Syriac, the Vulgate, Latin, and the Septuagint.^^ The 
collection of the fragments of Callimachus which he sent to 
Graevius, collected from innumerable sources, shows at 
once that he must have had some sort of index of writers 

^^ After speaking of Erasmus, Scaliger, and Casaubon, Jebb says 
Bentley "feels the greatness of his predecessors as it could be felt 
only by their peer, but sees that the very foundations on which they 
built — the classical books themselves — must be rendered sound, if the 
edifice is to be upheld or completed. He does not disparage "higher" 
criticism in which his own powers were so signally proved; rather 
his object is to estabUsh it firmly on the only basis which can securely 
support it, the basis of ascertained texts." — R. C. Jebb, Richard 
Bentley, p. 216. 

" Monk, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 14. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 35 

quoted by subsequent commentators, which, indeed, Monk 
says he had.^^ Not only did he systematize his knowledge 
in actual ways, as the above, but his mind must have con- 
tained it in some such state. Whenever he wishes to prove 
a point, he has a way of bringing forth all the stores of ancient 
literature that pertain to it. I think it hardly fair to Bentley 
or his critical method to attribute to chance, as De Quincey 
does, the out-of-the-way evidence he calls in to support 
his thesis. ^^ The spirit of modern scholarship is the desire 
to gain with minute accuracy all the information and evi- 
dence on the subject of the investigation, arranged and 
ordered in its proper relations. Imbued with this spirit, 
Bentley, instead of losing himself in a maze of unorganized 
knowledge, learned to systematize his material in such 
a way that he could focus upon a point, however minute, 
almost all that could throw any light upon it. 

Another support of Bentley's method was logic. In this, 
together with judgment, he seemed to take most pride. In 
the Phalaris dissertation he frequently twits Boyle (and 
with him his collaborators) for his lack of logic. ^^ While 
depreciating a discovery of his own Bentley says, ''Such a 
discovery is but a business of chance, or at the best of bare 
industry, neither is there any sagacity or judgment required 
to it." ^^ Again, ''If I do not make false judgments of 
things, and if I reason truly from premises, for a bare error 
of the memory I shall not be solicitous." ^^ He had perfect 
command over the materials of his learning, and built up 
his proofs with all the sureness and accuracy of a master 
builder. There had been scholars of as great if not greater 

12 Idem, vol. 1, p. 16. 

1^ The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, by David Masson. 
London, 1897, vol. IV, pp. 198, 215. 

" A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 2, p. 16. 

1* A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 1, p. 428. 

" Idem, vol. 2, p. 27. 



36 LEWIS THEOBALD 

erudition, but none whose reasoning was so close and clear. 
Whether he is eradicating a textual error, controverting 
atheists, or establishing the spuriousness of the Phalaris 
letters, the same powerful analytical spirit is active. 

In addition Bentley's work has the touch of the modern 
spirit in its insistence on minute accuracy. He spends a 
score of pages of his Epistola ad Millium proving that "Male- 
las" should be written with an ''s. " This insistence upon 
"trifles" was the ground of the bitterest attacks on him as 
a pedant. His enemies believed that only the large things, 
such as sentiment and philosophy, were of importance. 
In the preface to his examination of Bentley's dissertation 
Boyle characterizes the Phalaris controversy as trivial and 
frivolous. ^^ "I am not very fond of Controversies even 
where the Points debated are of some importance; but in 
trivial matters, and such as Mankind is not at all concern 'd 
in, methinks they are unpardonable." Another feature 
of this minute study that attracted the scorn of the wits 
was the establishment of chronology, to which Bentley had 
paid considerable attention in his dissertation. They ask 
the question what use it is to know that a writer was born 
in such and such a consulship or Olympiad ; better spend 
the time comprehending and studying the works of the 
ancients. Bentley used his extensive learning, not to express 
a general view of antiquity, but to establish some particular 
point. He was master of his knowledge, and wielded it 
with ruthless logic toward the correction of error and the 
establishment of truth. In comparing Bentley with Scahger 
Jebb says. 

While Scaliger had constantly before him the conception of antiq- 
uity as a whole to be mentally grasped, Bentley's criticism rested 

^^ Dr. Bentley's Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, and the Fables 
of Aesop examined By the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esq. London, 
1698. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 37 

on a knowledge more complete in detail; it was also conducted 
with a closer and more powerful logic. ^^ 

As stated previously, Bentley's work falls into the two 
divisions of ''higher" and textual criticism. He himself 
laid the emphasis upon the latter, and it was this that exerted 
such an influence over English scholarship in the eighteenth 
century. The critical method employed in both these 
fields was practically the same, although directed toward 
different ends. Compare, for instance, his works on Phalaris 
and Horace. There is in both the abandonment of tradi- 
tion for the deductions of reason from knowledge, in the 
one the tradition of authorship, in the other the tradition 
of old readings ; the same systematic use of all the stores of 
his knowledge toward the establishment, in one, of a histori- 
cal or chronological fact, in the other, of a new reading; 
and the same copious and pertinent citing of authorities. 
Nor is his logic more conspicuous in one than the other, al- 
though in textual criticism it led him into more mistakes, 
because logic and poetry do not always agree so well as logic 
and fact. 

Since we are concerned chiefly with the textual side of 
Bentley's criticism, it will be well to analyze his notes, the 
concrete expression of his critical method. Practically all 
of them conform to the same model. The passage 
with the common or accepted reading is first introduced, 
and together with the various manuscript readings and 
previous emendations is critically examined. ^^ One by one 

18 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 213. 

1® Cf. Latin Maniiscripts, by Harold W. Johnston, Chicago, 1897. 
The method here given by Professor Johnston for modern textual 
criticism tallies almost exactly with that employed by Bentley, the 
only difference being that, owing to the improved study of paleography 
and manuscripts, more attention is now paid to diplomatic criticism. 
Practically all the technical terms we use are derived from this book. 
Grammatical criticism has to do with violations of the laws of the 



38 LEWIS THEOBALD 

the different readings are subjected to a searching exam- 
ination. Where grammatical, historical, or aesthetic tests 
prove a corruption in the manuscript and failure on the 
part of previous scholars to remove it, Bentley flashes 
upon us his emendation. Immediately he begins to apply 
the tests again in support of his conjecture. He brings 
forth his knowledge of grammar, metrics, history, and the 
customs of the ancients, and shows the consistency of his 
correction with the rest of the passage. As one of his main 
supports he quotes from various authors passages in which 
the word he puts forward is used in a similar way, or passages 
which prove a historical or grammatical fact which he as- 
serts in support of his emendation.^'' Even where his 
corrections are absolutely unconvincing, these commentaries 
are often of value, so that Bentley teaches even when he is 
wrong. 

So well defined is this method that the qualities that 
came to be attributed to critics can with some definiteness 
be localized. Judgment (judicium) operated in ascertaining 
that there was an error in the text, sagacity (sagacitas or 
ingenium) invented the emendation, and learning (eruditio) 

language, and with passages where there is uninteUigibiUty or con- 
tradiction in thought. Historical criticism is operative when the 
passage contradicts knowledge gained from other sources. Aesthetic 
criticism levies upon what offends the taste, as unpoetical, unoratorical, 
undignified, etc. Professor Johnston's method falls into three divi- 
sions: the critical doubt, and the failure of diplomatic criticism to 
eradicate it; the emendation; and the conjectural criticism, which 
brings to bear all the tests to support the emendation, pp. 86-112. 
2° For example see his note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm. VI, v. 20, 
where, to "sustain the audacity of this conjecture by weight of num- 
bers and thick phalanxes," he quotes four separate passages from 
Virgil, one from Ovid, four from Martial, three from Statius, one from 
Ausonius, one from Prudentius, one from Lucilius, one from Cicero, 
and one from Claudian. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 39 

tested and supported the emendation .^^ Of course learning 
was brought to play on all parts of the method (as was, to a 
less degree, judgment), but it was shown more conspicuously 
in supporting a reading. 

The success of Bentley's method was noticeable from the 
start. His Epistle to Mill, published 1691, contains a large 
number of emendations, the quality of which led one scholar 
to say, after reading the proof sheets of the work, that Bentley 
was the only living person competent to restore the remains 
of the Greek poets from the depredations of time. A few 
years later his notes sent to continental scholars drew from 
their lips the highest encomiums, and expressions such as 
*Hhe new light of learning" became quite the order of the 
day .22 In England scholars were somewhat slower in ap- 
preciating Bentley. Since he had been on the unpopular 
side in the Phalaris controversy, and was engaged in a long 
drawn-out dispute in Trinity College, personal feelings and 
prejudices operated against recognition of his genius. But 
with the publication of Horace, 1711, there was no dodging 
the issue ; English scholars began to show an awakened 
interest and appreciation. John Davies, who had spoken 
highly of Bentley in the preface to his edition of Cicero's 
Tusculans, 1709, a few years later calls him ''Hterae Bri- 
tanniae decus." ^3 Clark, in the preface to his edition of 
Caesar, 1712, speaks of Bentley as a ''vir in hujus modi 
rebus peritia incredibili, et criticus unus omnes longe longeque 
judicio et sagacitate antecellans." Francis Hare judged 

2^ See the close of Styvan Thirlby's dedication of his edition of 
Justin Martyr, where he says Grabius is no critic, lacking genius, 
judgment, and learning: Casaubon very learned, but in want of judg- 
ment and genius. Here genius (ingenium) means sagacity, or that 
quality in a critic that must be rather innate than acquired. 

22 See the Letter to the Bishop of Ely, where Bentley enumerates 
the scholars who held him in high esteem, a passage ridiculed by Swift 
in A Vindication of Isaac Bickerstaff. 

23 "Lectori" to edition of Cicero's De Natura Deorum, 1717. 



40 LEWIS THEOBALD 

him to be easily the first in critical matters, ^^ and Jeremiah 
Markland in various places praised him in exaggerated 
terms.^^ 

Scholars of the old school, such as Joshua Barnes, and 
believers in the polite type of learning, such as the Christ 
Church group and their attendants, set themselves in op- 
position to Bentley and all he stood for. But the rising 
generation of scholars — Hare, Markland, Pearce, and the 
like — soon fell in behind him. More and more attention 
began to be paid to the obscurity of texts. The impulse 
toward textual criticism came from him, and his method 
was adopted ; even the manner of correcting and the form 
of textual notes resembled his more or less closely .^^ Bentley 
began an epoch; he established a new school of criticism, 
to which the greatest scholars of later times have belonged.^^ 

The greatest fault with Bentley's criticism was his predi- 
lection for conjecture beyond reasonable limits. While 
his work was by no means confined to this single phase — 
his collation was thorough and his elucidations very in- 
structive — he soon made it apparent that he considered 
conjectural criticism his forte. It was in this that he ex- 

2* Hare's editioti of Terence. London, 1724. Praefatio, p. xxvi. 

25 For further appreciation of Bentley, see Bihliographia Literaria 
(1723), No. 6, Article 3, and the two poems addressed to Bentley at 
the end of the article, the first in Greek trochaics, ''Clarissimo Viro 
R. Bentleio post Lambinium et Torrentium suas in Horatium Ani- 
madversiones evulganti"; the other in Latin elegiacs, 'Tn Horatium 
nitori pristino restitutum VI Idus Decembris, die quo natus ipse est, 
a Summo Viro R. B." This article was written by Wasse, who in 
the prefaces to his edition of Salust, 1710, called Bentley a "vir in omni 
literarum genere maximus." 

26 For example, see J. Markland's edition of Statins, London, 1728, 
p. 117. For less conspicuous examples, see the notes in Zackary 
Pearce's edition of the De Sublimitate of Longinus, 1724. 

27 See Monk, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 15; vol. 2, p. 418; and the article 
on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed. 



THE KAGE FOR EMENDING 41 

perienced most joy and won most praise. The older he 
grew, the more incUned he became to trust his own judg- 
ment as to what an author wrote, until his rashness came 
near dimming the luster of his earlier brilhant work. 

This emphasis upon emendatory criticism was made known 
to the public in a most emphatic way in his edition of Horace, 
1711. In the preface to that work the great critic first 
declared, in so many words, that he considered conjecture 
more certain than manuscript reading, and reason and the 
sense of the passage itself stronger than a hundred manu- 
scripts. In his previous emendations he had often 
departed from the manuscripts, but his conjectures were 
made nearly entirely on Greek authors where the manu- 
scripts were very corrupt and their meaning unintelligible. 
On the other hand, the manuscripts and editions of Horace 
were numerous and fairly good ; much care, also, had been 
expended upon the text in the way of collation and emenda- 
tion. Thus Bentley did not find as broad a field for con- 
jecture as formerly. Before, he had restricted himself to 
passages where the meaning was almost or entirely obscured ; 
but in this edition unintelligibility ceased to be the main 
reason for conjecture. He tried to introduce into Horace 
a verbal accuracy and logical consistency, and trusted his 
judgment of what was elegant or smooth to such an extent 
as to make it a determining factor in his conjectures. 

The effect of this performance was twofold. Jebb says, 
''But while the Horace shows Bentley 's critical method on 
a large scale and in a most striking form, it illustrates his 
defects as conspicuously as his strength." ^s The defect 
was a readiness, doubtless engendered by previous success in 
corrupt Greek texts, to correct, by strict logic and the normal 
usage of words, passages which made very good meaning 
as they stood — a readiness that proved disastrous to 
28 R. C. Jebb. op. cit., p. 125. 



42 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Bentley because he possessed a judicium logicum rather than 
judicium poeticiun. The hberty of emending was naturally 
resented by a few scholars. Bishop Hare represents this 
feeling in saying,-^ 

The foremost men in criticism have bound themselves with such 
reverence to trust in the parclmients in the recension of the \\Tit- 
ings of the ancients, that they always considered it ^\Tong to with- 
draw the least particle from these, unless in a case that is completely 
understood, or to insert conjectures into the text of an author 
which are not clear, transparent, certain, and plainly necessary. 
This was the plan of the critics in handhng the wTitings of the 
ancients, this their rehgion, until Bentley, "that new hght of our 
Britain," arose, who as if he had obtained, sole and alone, the 
highest place in Criticism, denied that laws applied to him, and does 
not suffer himself to be restrained by any rules; he recognizes no 
hmit to the power of his criticism; by virtue of his arbitrary au- 
thority he riots with impunity in the writings of the ancients; 
and allows whatever pleases. 

But the more powerful effect of the Horace was to 
strengthen a growing attitude toward texts. Scholars began 
to view them with suspicious eyes. In his edition of Statins, 
Markland says there are things in the Aeneid which he, 
although the worst poet in the world, would not admit into 
a poem of his — many passages contradictory, languid, 
trifling, defective in the spirit and majesty of heroic poetry. 
He exclaims what a divine poet Virgil would have been had 
he always written as he did in the second, fourth, and sixth 
books. Then he adds, ''Et tu quidem sic omnia Scripsisses, 
si tibi permissent Tempus et male feristi Homines : sed nunc 
pars minima es ipse Tui." ^^ Texts were judged, a priori, 
to be corrupt, blame being laid upon time and the gram- 
marians. It was of no moment that a reading was perfectly 

2^ Epistola Critica, p. 4 (translated from the Latin). 
30 Statius, 1728. Praefatio, p. viii. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 43 

intelligible and no corruption evident ; one might lurk deep 
beneath the surface. To correct an obvious obscurity was 
glory enough, but to correct an unsuspected reading was 
more glorious still. In a letter to Warburton, Theobald 
says with much pride, ''I have been so impudent as to sus- 
pect that Eustathius sometimes wants restoring, where he 
has never before, that I know, been suspected of being 
faulty." ^^ Men sought for faults, and because they read 
texts with this idea in mind, discovered many obscurities 
that were merely their own hallucinations. They were 
obsessed with this idea of faulty texts. Bentley's Horace 
had opened their eyes to many interpretations of which 
they had never dreamed. Atterbury might well express 
his alarm over finding so many places in Horace that he 
had not understood before. 

This distrust of accepted readings became something like 
a psychological prepossession, wherein conjecture assumed 
an added glory. What else can explain Bentley's Milton? 
In this skeptical attitude towards books and manuscripts 
and in the search for possible inconsistencies, the wish 
became father of the thought, and self-deception tended 
to destroy all sense of values. Perhaps the worst example 
of the mania is to be found in Jeremiah Markland, who, 
after Bentley, was one of the foremost English scholars of 
his day. In his edition of Euripides he declares that after 
all the pains he and others have taken to explain Horace, 
there is not a single ode, epode, or satire which he can truly 
and honestly say he perfectly understands. Of this Hurd 



Was there ever a better instance of a poor man's puzzling and 
confounding himself by his own obscure diligence, or a better ex- 
emplification of the old remark nae intelligendo faciunt ut nihil 
intelligant? — After all, I believe the Author is a very good man, 

'^ Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 552. 



44 LEWIS THEOBALD 

and a learned; but a miserable instance of a man of slender parts 
and sense, besotted by a fondness for his own peculiar study, and 
stupefied by an intense application to the minutiae of it.^^ 

One of Markland's emendations shows very clearly this 
searching for faults and this unnecessary correcting, together 
with the joy of it all. Although the note is long, it gives 
such a true picture of the correcting craze, that it may not 
be amiss to quote the larger part of it. It is on the twenty- 
ninth verse of the first Sermo. Horace is here speaking of 
how every man is dissatisfied with his own vocation and 
envies that of another. For example he takes four men — 
farmer, merchant, lawyer, and soldier. These he first 
calls miles, mercator, agricola, and legum peritus. When 
he mentions them again, they are miles, mercator, consultus, 
and rusticus. In their next appearance they are 

lUe gravem duro terram qui vertit aratro 
Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne. 

Markland objects to caupo, which means huckster or peddler, 
being introduced and the lawyer left out. He proceeds 
about his emendation in this manner : 

Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne — which is the 
same as if he had narrated in this fashion, "these four men, for- 
sooth agricola, miles, mercator, and," what was the other? Juris 
consultus, I think you will say: rightly but where will you find 
it? It has gone, and in its place there has been substituted this 
caupo, in truth perfidus, inasmuch as it has by the greatest fraud 

^ Nichols, Literary Anecedotes, vol. 4, p. 290. Markland expresses 
a similar sentiment in the preface to his Statins (p. v), where he says 
there are hardly ten consecutive lines of the eclogues that hitherto 
he had understood: "Statim enim deprehendi, non cum Punctis et 
Apicibus et Minutiis hisce Criticis rem mihi futuram; sed debellanda 
esse monstra horrenda, informia, ingentia, (ut ille ait) quibus omne 
lumen ademtum.'^ 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 45 

ejected an innocent man from his legitimate possession. For you 
who best understand the genius of Horace and his skill in hterary 
art, will never, I beheve, bring yourself to think that the divine 
Mnemosyne played such tricks with our Venusinus that, although 
a little before he twice made mention of Juris peritus, now sud- 
denly and in the same series of representations he pokes caupo 
at us. This is the same as to make a woman beautiful in the 
upper part of her body, but like a fish beneath : it is impossible ever 
to find this levity in Horace, with whom this is the rule, that a 
poem is sustained to the end as it commenced. If Tully, when 
he speaks of beauty, shows this, "Since there are two kinds of 
beauty, in one of which there is grace, in the other dignity, we 
ought to consider grace a womanly quahty, and ill-will (malitia) 
a manly quahty;" does not this seem wonderful? What did this 
same critic [Bentley] do? Did he not against the authority of 
all the MSS substitute dignitatem for mahtiam? certainly, for 
Cicero could not have written otherwise: nor would he beUeve 
Cicero, if Cicero himself affirmed he wrote otherwise: for this 
would be, as Quintilian facetiously remarks, to begin in a storm 
and end in flames and ruin. This place of Flaccus is altogether 
in an equal circumstance. Besides I ask what does hie caupo wish 
for itseK? as if something about caupo had preceded. Which 
must have happened in order that ''hie" should hold its place 
rightly. You have the reasons, and indeed very strong ones, 
why I number this passage among the corrupt: would that with the 
same labor it were permitted to replace it among the restored, 
for that is sound as it is now borne about, persuasion herself, 
could never persuade me — Indeed, I have often suspected that 
the word consultus or causidicus lurked in this place, as the sense 
entirely demands unless you wish to argue Horace guilty of in- 
consistency and absurdities. And, for very truth, unless my 
eyes deceive me, that which I wish, I dream, I see approaching 
in the manner of the Sabines, that very Trebonianus himself, under 
the mask of this perfidus caupo; but so changed that Deiphobus, 
whom Virgil mentions, scarcely wore a worse habit. Therefore, 
let us look more attentively in this manner. 



46 LEWIS THEOBALD 

^erfidus hie caupo 
Behold when these letters, fidus hie cau, are reversed a little, 
there comes out the word causidicus of the same number of syl- 
lables, as the word which we are seeking: for s and f (as Bentley 
notes elsewhere) are the same in the MSS; and vowels or the 
aspirate h are very often elided in the middle of words, as in Jul. 
Firmicus. Astrologia. VIII. 21. instead of nobiUs faciet nothos, 
write notos. Now why, good man, do you look askance? Do 
you consider it of no significance that all these letters that make 
up the desired word, although interchanged, yet have assembled in 
this place where it is most necessary for them to be? For beware 
how you object that Epicurean objection, the fortuitous concourse 
of letters; since I have a response ready for you from Cicero, 
indeed from the Ihad of Homer, and the Annals of Ennius. 

But I grant, you will say, that this causidicus has been restored 
to its old place, what will be done about the rest of the verse? 
Indeed, it is not clear to me; and I am forced to ask the aid of the 
tribuni; and the labor is between you and Bentley; for you two, 
or no one, are those who can restore Horace to Horace. But 
since he who has once transgressed the bounds of modesty ought 
to be entirely impudent, I proceed to make sacrifices to the god 
of laughter. An adjective for the word causidicus seems to be 
desired, which must be forged out of the two syllables Po and Per: 
Let us try whether Mercury can be fashioned out of this rude stick, 
in this manner, 

Causidicus vafer, 
which agrees so well with this passage, that if Flaccus has not 
given it thus, nevertheless he could have given it thus in a cor- 
rect and happy manner. For elsewhere, Sermo. I. 3. de juris 
consulto. 

Ut Alsenus Vafer, omni 
And II. 2. V. 131 

Ilium aut nequitias, aut vafri inscitia juris. 
Therefore the whole passage I restore thus 

Causidicus vafer hie, miles, nautaeque. 
For you have the four genuine dramatis personae; and at the 
same time you will notice how aptly balanced hie and ille are, and 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 47 

how beautifully through the whole narration the phases are varied; 
so that him whom before he called Agricola, and rure extractus, 
and rusticus, now he calls him who turns the earth with his plow; 
whom before a merchant now a sailor who hurries over every 
sea; whom before a juris legumque peritus, and consultus, now 
a causidicus; most likely to avoid tedium which is wont to arise 
in the minds of the readers from the excessive repetition of the 
same word,^' 

Then he goes on to give examples where letters have been 
disordered and reversed, but our patience is exhausted, and 
we can sympathize with Pope : 

For thee, explain a thing till all men doubt it, 
And write about it, Goddess, and about it. 

To such length was this mania carried. The above note 
occurs in Markland's Epistola Critica, 1723, a book of some 
two hundred pages consisting entirely of emendations from 
nearly fifty different authors. It was quite the fashion to 
issue notes on one or more authors independent of any text. 
In such manner Bentley published his emendations of 
Philemon and Menander. And to works of this kind Shake- 
speare Restored exactly corresponds. Since a correction 
stood on its own footing, there was nothing to prevent an 
emendation of Homer standing side by side with one of 
Lucian. 

There were several factors at work fostering this rage for 
emending. The success and convincing nature of Bentley 's 
method inspired scholars with a sincere faith in the efficacy 
of conjectural criticism.^'' From this belief there developed 

33 Translated from the Latin. 

^ In his preface to Statins, Markland stoutly upholds the need 
and power of conjecture, saying that what we now read is not Statius, 
but some unknown person; that to pass by obscure places is a dis- 
regard of duty, which leads to " Incertitude in Studiis," " Despicatio," 
and "contemtus." Of five hundred such places in his edition he feels 



48 LEWIS THEOBALD 

a joy in seeing literature rescued from the ravages of time. 
A somewhat romantic feehng accompanied the restoration 
of ancient writings to their pristine purity, a certain feeUng 
of partnership with the author, so that critics felt as though 
they were actually assisting him. In speaking of the preface 
to Bentley's Phaedrus, Hare says Bentley promised great 
and glorious things, '^ Phaedrus sick and ulcerous up to now, 
would at last be restored to his pristine integrity by his 
powers, as though he were another Aesculapius." ^^ Ac- 
cording to Markland conjecture may well be deemed the 
preserver of all antiquity : 

For you best know that access to an exact knowledge of antiq- 
uity and to perfect erudition is altogether denied without this 
art; and he has accomplished Httle in reading the antients, who- 
ever has not seized upon many errors of this kind in their writings.^^ 

In the dedication to his Justin Martyr, Thirlby goes still 
farther : 

Whatever pleasure or utility there is in universal knowledge, 
criticism demands in its own right all of this to be placed to its 
credit, since on it depends the whole knowledge of antiquity, 
and to it we owe whatever of ancient books is extant in no less 
degree than to the authors themselves, whom, were it not for 
the critics, we would not have read, but in their place we would 
have read the comments and errors of stupid Hbrarians, and thus 
no one would ever understand authors, nor could he understand 
them, unless he knew criticism. 

uncertain about only fifty, while some of his conjectures he regards 
as possessed of almost mathematical certainty. Of one of his emen- 
dations (p. xii) he asks, "Quis tarn inepte fautor Veterum Lectionum, 
ut non hoc concedat? nemo certe: nisi si quis tam durus reperiri 
queat, ut fateatur se Vetera et Falsa quam Recentia et Vera malle; 
cujus Sinisteritatem pro Judicio suspicare, nae esset indicium mentis 
infirmae, & Veritatis Numine parum contactae." 

35 Hare's Epistola Critica, p. 5. 

36 Markland's Epistola Critica, p. 2. Both quotations are trans- 
lated from the Latin. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 49 

And a little farther down he says he would not place criticism 
''lower than any art either in dignity of matter or utility 
of gift." *^ He even goes so far as to say that the very 
worst critics, bereft of judgment and reasons, stupid and 
dull, sometimes make corrections that cannot be called into 
doubt. 

Another has paid his tribute to criticism, but rather as 
one who appreciates than as one who has indulged in it. 
Owing to his prominence in this work his words have an 
added significance. Writing in The Censor, April 20, 1715, 
Theobald expresses his regard for antiquity and criticism : 

I am so professed an Admirer of Antiquity, that I am never 
better pleased with the Labours of my Contemporaries, than 
when they busy themselves in retrieving the sacred Monuments 
of their Forefathers from Obscurity and Oblivion. . . . We Lovers 
of Antiquity have our Foibles of this Nature, which we keep up 
with a very innocent Superstition. For my own part, the Shelves 
of my Study are filled with curious Volumes in all sorts of Litera- 
ture, that preserve the Fragments of great and venerable Authors. 
These I consider as so many precious Collections from a Shipwreck 
of inestimable Value; comforting myself for the loss of the general 
Cargo, by the greater Price and Esteem that ought to be set upon 
the injured Remains. In opposite Columns to these stand the 
Restorers of ancient Learning who are continually snatching deli- 
cious Morsels from the Mouth of Time, and forcing that general 
Robber to a Restitution of his ill-gotten Goods. . . . When upon 
stumbling over the first Shelves I have discovered an uncommon 
Beauty and Strength of Wit in an imperfect Paragraph, I grieve 
as much that I cannot recover the Whole, as a brave man would 
for the Amputation of a Limb, from a strong and vigorous Body 
that had done his country great Services, and seemed to promise it 
yet greater. If upon these Occasions any of the learned happen 
to have supplied that Defect, by restoring a maimed Sentence to 

2^ It is well to keep in mind that throughout this period criticism 
means textual criticism, and that, for the most part, conjectural. 



50 LEWIS THEOBALD 

its original Life and Spirit, I pay him the same Regard as the 
ancient Romans did to one who has preserved the Ufe of a fellow- 
citizen. In the disposition of Homer's Battles, we find that excel- 
lent Poet has placed the Physician at a convenient Nearness to 
the fighting Hero to be in readiness to cure his Wounds, and my 
generous Critics observe the same Order, and stand prepared to 
come into the Assistance of an injured Author. 

Another element underlying this prepossession was the 
fascination of emending. There are all the attractions of a 
puzzle in seeing what can be substituted and still satisfy 
the requirements of the passage. Men engaged in it as a 
tour de force. One eighteenth-century scholar has expressed 
this idea well : 

Authors have been taken in hand hke anatomical subjects, only 
to display the skill and abilities of the Artist; so that the end of 
many an Edition seems often to have been no more than to ex- 
hibit the great sagacity and erudition of an Editor. The Joy 
of the Task was the Honour of mending, while Corruptions were 
sought with a more than common attention, as each of them 
afforded a testimony to the Editor and his Art.^^ 

This fascination grew so strong as to be almost irresistible, 
as is well testified to by Bentley's Milton, speaking of which 
Harris says, '^But the rage of Conjecture seems to have 
seized him, as that of Jealousy did Medea; a rage, which 
she confest herself unable to resist, altho' she knew the 
mischiefs, it would prompt her to perpetrate." ^^ This 
same fascination Theobald has expressed in other terms, 
where in his letters to Warburton he speaks of looking 
forward to the letters containing Warburton's emendations 
like a boy for a letter from his sweetheart, and how he reads 

'8 Philological Inquiries, by James Harris, 1781. Pt. I, p. 35' 
See also the story of the Empiric on the same page. 

39 Idem, p. 37. Whalley calls conjecture "the darling passion of 
our modern critics." An Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare, 
1745, p. 15. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 51 

the letter slowly, like a boy with a sweet morsel, afraid to eat 
it up ; while in another place he calls himself an avaricious 
husbandman of emendations.'*^ In the preface to his edi- 
tion of Shakespeare Johnson speaks of Upton as being 

unable to restrain the rage of emendation, the his ardour is ill sec- 
onded by his skill. Every cold empirick, when his heart is ex- 
panded by a successful experiment, swells into a theorist, and the 
laborious collator at some unlucky moment frolicks in conjecture. 
. . . It is an unhappy state, in which danger is hid under pleasure. 
The allurements of emendation are scarcely resistible. Conjecture 
has all the joy and all the pride of invention, and he that has once 
started a happy change, is too much delighted to consider what 
objections may arise against it. 

A third incentive to this enticing pursuit was the reputa- 
tion that waited upon a plausible conjecture. In his 
Dissertation on Phalaris Bentley speaks of the glory and 
honor attendant upon emendations.''^ His first essay drew 
from continental scholars, as we have seen, the highest 
words of praise. From that time on more and more honor 
began to accrue to a convincing or ingenious emendation. 
Hurd says that it was the high regard in which emendatory 
criticism was held that naturally tempted Warburton to 
make some effort for distinction in a department of scholar- 
ship for which he was little fitted. '^^ Hare, perhaps mali- 
ciously, attributed Bentley's excessive emendations to his 
inordinate desire for glory .'^^ In defense of his first work on 
Shakespeare Theobald says, ''The Alteration of a Letter, 
when it restores Sense to a corrupted Passage, in a learned 
Language, is an Atchievment that Brings Honour to the 
Critic who advances it.'' ^^ In his burlesque notes on 

4° Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 257, 557, 283. 

"1 Dyce, op. ait., vol. 1, pp. 155, 276. 

42 J. S. Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 67. 

*' Epistola Critica, p. 148. 

** Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 



52 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Bentley's Horace, which we shall notice soon, Dr. William 
King touches frequently on this glory and praise. Apropos 
of one of Bentley's notes, he says, ''From such atchievments 
as these men attain the titles of Accurate, Illustrious, Learned, 
Acute, the star of Criticism, the North Pole of Erudition." 
King depreciates the method and laments the honor it 
receives : 

What a noble art is Criticism, when an excursion into a Vocabu- 
lary, or a tolerable progress made in an Index, shall be deemed 
an Atchievment, an Adventure, and accordingly entitle a man 
to everlasting honour and glory. 

There was, however, a reaction against the popularity of 
conjectural criticism. For a long time there had been in 
England a feeling against pedantry, though the ideas of what 
constituted a pedant were subject to change. A pedant 
might be a Holofernes who paraded his learning in his con- 
versations; or else a writer larding his works with quotations 
from all the ancients. With the establishment of the Royal 
Society and the controversy between the ancients and 
moderns that followed soon after, the virtuoso became a 
pedant. At the time of and during the Phalaris controversy 
a pedant seems to have been considered one who spent 
much time and showed great learning in the searching out 
of trifles. Many were the charges of pedantry brought 
against Bentley on this score, his opponents even going so 
far as to say that the whole Phalaris controversy was over 
a trifle. Swift, Pope, and their cohorts for nearly half a cen- 
tury carried on this fight against the "abuses of learning." 

The trouble lay in the placing of emphasis. The polite 
scholars and literati insisted that minute knowledge of fact 
was useless, or at least infinitely below knowledge and ap- 
preciation of the thought and sentiment of the ancients. 
St. Evremond, an apostle of taste, says of critics that ''The 
whole Mystery of their Learning lies in what we might as 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 53 

well be ignorant of, and they are absolutely strangers to 
what's really worth knowing." *^ Another upholder of 
taste, the philosopher Shaftesbury, says, 

A good poet and a honest historian may afford learning enough 
for a Gentleman. And such a one, whilst he reads these authors 
as his diversion, will have a truer relish of their sense, and under- 
stand 'em better, than a pedant, with all his labours, and the 
assistance of his volumes of commentators. ^^ 

And he asks what good will become of the Phalaris contro- 
versy though ''the world out of curiosity may delight to 
see a pedant expos'd by a man of better wit, and a con- 
troversy thus unequally carry'd on between two such op- 
posite party s." ^^ 

It was the same cry with them all. Wit was a knight 
errant who, with his squire Good Sense, was bound on the 
consecrated adventure of rescuing fair Taste from the foul 
clutches of Pedantry. It is somewhat hard to reaUze just 
how bitter these attacks were. Wotton, Bentley, Jortin, 
and others all bear witness to the hardships undergone by 
scholars. The constant attacks must have so influenced 
popular judgments that it was possible for Atterbury and 
his tribe seemingly to discomfit Bentley, and for Pope to 
attempt to brand Theobald with the mark of his satire. 
The general public was far more appreciative of the flashes 
of wit than of the researches of scholars; good taste was a 
fairer object to defend than a restored reading or established 
fact in science. Even after full allowance is made for satire 
based on spite, and the unusual suitability of research to 
the satire of a predominantly satiric age, it is rather hard 

*^ The Works of Monsieur De St. Evremond, Made English from the 
French Original. By Mr. Des Maizeaux. In three volumes, 1714, 
vol. Ill, p. viii. 

^ Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, In three volumes. 
1711, vol. I, p. 122. 

47 Idem, vol. 3, Miscell. 1, Chap. 1. 



54 LEWIS THEOBALD 

not to believe that the satirists were sometimes sincere 
in their championship of taste, that they looked upon the 
prevailing type of research as injuriously wrong. 

With the publication of Bentley's Horace the pedant 
becomes the verbal critic. Years before this there had been 
a feeling against verbal criticism. N. Heinsius, in the pref- 
ace to his edition of Claudian, 1665, spoke of ''importuna 
quorundam superstitio, qui aut nihil omnino in antiquis 
scriptoribus mutari sinuunt." And a year before the 
appearance of the Horace this feeling is echoed by Wasse, 
who says, ''mentes tantam superstitionem occupasse, ut 
multo patientius librariorum quam edit oris judicia ferant.'' *^ 
In the same year Gronovius, in answer to Bentley's emenda- 
tions on Menander, made a very rabid attack on Bentley's 
conjectural criticism, wherein, among other things, he called 
the critic a frenzied Numidian, and thought it a matter of 
public concern how Menander had been treated. He con- 
stantly spoke of the praise, fame, and glory that ought not 
to come from such trivial or wicked accomplishments.^^ 

As long as Bentley confined his labors to such writers as 
Malelas, Phalaris, and the fragments of the Greek poets, 
he was beyond the ken of many of the wits, but when he 
laid hands upon Horace, he was desecrating the literary 
idol of the day.^^ It was because of this popularity that 

^^ J. Wasse, Preface to his edition of Sallust, 1710. 

^^ Infamia Emendationis in Menandri Reliquias . . . Lundini Bata- 
vorum, 1710. 

^° Some idea of the popularity of Horace may be gained from this 
contemporary account: "The singular esteem which some critics 
have always expressed for the works of Horace became at last so fash- 
ionable, that scarce a man who affected the character of a poUte 
scholar ever travelled ten miles from home without an Horace in his 
pocket. The last E. of S. was such an Admirer of Horace that his 
whole conversation consisted of quotations out of that poet: in which 
he often discovered his want of skill in the Latin tongue, and always 
his want of taste. But the man whom I looked on (if I may be allowed 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 55 

Bentley edited him, because he ''was famihar to men's 
hands and hearts." Immediately a small host of publica- 
tions came into existence, directed against Bentley in partic- 
ular and emendatory criticism in general. ^^ A fair sample 
of the pointless abuse heaped upon the scholar is furnished 
by a quotation from Dr. King's ''Some account of Horace's 
Behaviour": 

But I never heard that Horace whilst in college, "Kept Chapel" 
himself; but that he has hindered other persons from minding 
Divinity, which should have been their proper study, rather than 
to find out ques, and atque's, and vel's, and nec's, and neque's 
at the expense of a thousand pounds a year and upwards, de- 
signed for much better usages than to correct an old Latin Song- 
book, not to say worse of it, notwithstanding all the graces and 
beauties of its language. 

The cleverest satire on the edition, however, is to be found 
in a poem called Bibliotheca, pubhshed in 1712. ^^ After 
granting Boyle the victory in the Phalaris controversy, the 
satirist turns on Bentley's Horace. 

Bentley immortal honour gets, 
By changing Que's to nobler Et's: 
From Cam to I sis see him roam. 
To fetch stray 'd Interjections home; 

the expression) as Horace-mad, was one Dr. Douglas." — Political 
and Literary Anecdotes of His Own Times. By Dr. William King, 
Principal of St. Mary Hall, Oxon. London, 1819, p. 70. 

In his essay On Translating the Odes of Horace Professor Trent 
calls attention to a Dr. Biram Eaton, who had read Horace many 
hundred times. The Oxford Book of American Essays, ed. B. Matthews, 
1914, p. 497. 

^^ Among attacks pubhshed in 1712 were Horatius Reformatus, 
The Life and Conversation of Richard Bentley, and Five Extraordinary 
Letters, all published anonymously and all full of abuse, both personal 
and general. 

^2 See Appendix A. 



56 LEWIS THEOBALD 

While the glad shores with joy rebound, 
For Periods and lost Commas found: 
Poor Adverbs, that had long deplor'd 
Their injur 'd rights, by him restored 
Smil'd to survey a rival's doom, 
While they possessed the envied room; 
And hissing from their rescued throne 
Th' Usurper's fate, applaud their own. 
The Roman nymphs, for want of notes 
More tender, strain'd their little throats, 
Till Bentley to relieve their woes 
Gave them a sett of Ah's and Oh's: 
More musically to complain, 
And warble forth their gentle pain. 
The suffering fair no more repine. 
For vowels now to sob and whine ; 
In softest air their passion try. 
And, without spoihng metre, die: 
With Interjections of his own, 
He helps them now to weep and groan; 
That reading him, no lover fears 
Soft vehicles for sighs and tears. ^^ 

Another attempt to ridicule Bentley's Horace and his 
method was made in a complete translation of the edition, 
notes and all, from the Latin into English.^ Monk says the 
translation ''adopts such a vulgar phraseology as would 
give a ludicrous character to any book." Not only this, 
but the translator foists in whole phrases, adds words, and 
mistranslates so as to exaggerate Bentley's propensities, as 
when he translates the epithets applied to the grammarians 
as ''Ruffy, Spark, Blade." Of the notes upon notes, some 
seriously try to refute Bentley's notes, some try to prove 
him inconsistent, some make fun of his method and charac- 

53 John Nichols, A Select Collection of Poems, vol. 3, p. 60. 
^ See Appendix B. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 57 

teristics, while others turn his notes into pure farce. Some 
are tiresome, but many have humorous turns and comical 
applications. The author has analyzed Bentley's method 
and has ridiculed it with some success; the critical doubt, 
the emendation, and the conjectural criticism all come in 
for their share of scorn. The satirist especially finds fault 
with Bentley's dogmatism and his way of speaking both of 
those he Hkes and those he dislikes. Nor does he fail to 
attack the triviality of verbal criticism in general. 

Bentley's work did not escape condemnation even on the 
continent. Le Clerc, at this time Professor of Ecclesiastical 
History at Amsterdam, who had reasons for disliking Bentley, 
issued a restrained pamphlet against him, which was straight- 
way translated into English and pubHshed in London. ^^ 
It is something of a prototype of Edwards' Canons of Criti- 
cism directed against Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 
only it is serious and everywhere treats Bentley with respect, 
although condemning him at times. Le Clerc draws up a 
list of seven ''Critical Rules and Remarks," which may be 
summed up as saying we do not have sufficient knowledge 
and judgment to correct the ancients with surety, and there- 
fore should not speak too confidently of our emendations. 

Another work written about this time, though not pub- 
lished until many years later, is Virigilius Restauratus, written 
by Arbuthnot, although perhaps assisted by other members 
of the Scriblerus Club. It seeks to disparage Bentley's 
method by useless emendations of the Aeneid, given in notes 
burlesquing Bentley's method, some of which are very 
clever and logically plausible. ^^ 

^5 Mr. Le Clerc' s Judgment and Censure of Dr. Bentley's Horace; 
And of the Amsterdam Edition compared with that of Cambridge. Trans- 
lated from the French. 1713. 

" Later the Dundad indulges in the same kind of sport. Pope found 
the ground fallow for his attack on Theobald, and his comparatively 
poor success speaks volumes for his adversary's merits. 



58 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Bentley's Horace awakened the slumbering resentment 
against conjectural criticism; while attacks at first were 
generally leveled against him for his boldness, this feeling 
gradually extended against all performers in the field. ^^ 
It became more and more necessary for critics to speak out 
against such opposition. Furthermore, if we may judge 
by the defense of verbal criticism made by classical scholars, 
this feeling seems to have been more widely spread than is 
apparent from its expression in print. Of the hostility 
to verbal criticism Markland says, 

I know there will not be wanting those who will slander this phase 
of learning as being trivial, and contributing nothing either to use- 
fulness or pleasure in life: for none are more free to judge than 
those who either do not read or do not understand.^* 

The first serious attempt at an answer to these attacks of 
the "indocti" and ''literati,'' as they were called, is found 
in the dedication to Lord Craven of Thirlby's Justin Martyr y 
a rather tedious array of long involved Latin sentences 
written in a barbarous style. While Thirlby attacks cer- 
tain phases of classical studies, especially chronology, textual 
criticism is most stubbornly defended. He claims that 
people who do not know criticism comfort themselves with 
the thought that it is futile and trivial. To those who 
attack criticism on the ground of triviality he answers that 
all arts sometime deviate into triviality : physicians, lawyers, 
physicists, metaphysicians, theologians, all deal in trifles. 
He is especially severe on mathematicians and those who 
indulge in the study of chronology. He replies to those who 

^^ One irate objector proposed a plan whereby the infalhbihty of 
critics could be tested. He suggested that passages be transcribed 
from some poet and lacunae purposely left. Then emenders could 
set to work to fill up deficiencies. See Des Maizeaux's preface to The 
Works of St. Ewemond, 1714. 

^8 Epistola Critica, p. 2. 



THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 59 

say that criticism is not conducive to convenience in life 
or the pubHc good, by asserting that on this basis all arts 
would be overthrown. And as for delight, whatever pleasure 
there is in knowledge, criticism can claim for itself, for 
without it we should be reading grammarians instead of 
original authors: 

We should wonder that this art, whose prerogative and duty it 
is to correct the writings of the Ancients, incredibly depraved by 
the various injuries of a long time, and to restore them to their 
pristine splendour, should seem a futile, absurd, and entirely use- 
less undertaking to learned men, and especially to those who pro- 
fess themselves the greatest admirers of these writers.^* 

Thus there was developing among the literati an opposi- 
tion to textual criticism almost as strong as the prepossession 
in favor of the same among scholars. The arguments in- 
troduced against the pursuit were repeated again and again. 
The study of words was a trivial matter, and not worthy of 
the attention of intelligent men. The study was useless, for 
it conferred no real benefit upon mankind. These were the 
two main contentions, which also had furnished the basis 
of the attacks on the new science and on pedantry. In the 
third place criticism was inefficient, for it could not restore 
the original reading, but merely gave the guesses of the con- 
jecturers. Furthermore, the insertion of readings, unsup- 
ported by manuscripts, was wrong and an injustice done to 
the author. Lastly, criticism was injurious to a man's 
disposition, making him proud, arrogant, and altogether 
an undeserving person, given to quarrels and vituperation. 
These arguments the enemies of verbal criticism marshaled 
against it throughout the first half of the eighteenth century. 

But these attacks did not lessen indulgence in the pursuit. 
By his marvelous success Bentley had drawn the attention 
of scholars to his own favorite study. The success of his 
^9 Translated from the Latin. 



60 LEWIS THEOBALD 

method inspired others with confidence in the undertaking; 
in emulation of the great critic scholars turned their attention 
more and more to the study of texts. So great became their 
enthusiasm that the correcting of texts, especially by emenda- 
tion, amounted to an obsession with which the classics were 
read by critical and suspicious eyes. Even the term "criti- 
cism," when unmodified, meant verbal criticism.^ Al- 
though the opposition to this peculiar study was energetic 
enough and indulged in by the foremost wits of the time, 
ultimately their attacks failed, Bentley's labors reaching 
their flower in Porson, and Theobald's in the later capable 
critics of Shakespeare.®^ 

^^ See preface to William Broome's Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. 

" See Mmeum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. Here Porson says literary- 
criticism is nothing compared with verbal criticism, and though at 
one time the latter was thought lowest of all Uterary expression, "in 
this age of taste and learning it would not be considered trifling." 



CHAPTER III 

SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 

In an age so obsessed with the idea of correcting and so 
prodigal of praise, as well as blame, for the corrector, it 
was only natural that sooner or later the critical spirit should 
break through classical bounds and seek unconquered worlds 
beyond. Shakespeare was the first to attract attention. 
In spite of the attacks of the Aristotelians and the predilec- 
tion of the age for classical regularity, he was the most 
highly admired of English poets. Furthermore, the progress 
of the originally poor text through four folios had left the 
plays in a worse condition than many manuscripts of the 
classics. Here, then, was a rich field for the textual critic, 
and the reward promised to be proportional to the popularity 
of the poet. By the time Pope undertook to edit Shake- 
speare the resemblance of the text to a classical one was 
rather generally recognized, as well as the need of similar 
treatment. After speaking of the critical care expended upon 
classical authors, Dr. George Sewell says. 

What then has been done by the really Learned to the dead lan- 
guages, by treading backward into the Paths of Antiquity and 
reviving and correcting good old Authors, we in Justice owe to 
our great Writers, both in Prose and Poetry. They are in some 
degree our Classics; on their foundations we must build, as the 
Formers and refiners of our Language.^ 

But if the similarity between the classics and Shakespeare's 
text was noticed, it was not until two editions had been 

1 Preface, dated November 24, 1724, to Seventh Volume of Pope's 
Edition of Shakespeare, 1725. 



62 LEWIS THEOBALD 

printed that the classical method was applied. Rowe sug- 
gested comparing the text with earlier editions, but seems 
to have based his chiefly on the fourth folio.^ While some 
of his emendations have proved satisfying, and while he 
rendered real service in giving the lists of dramatis personae 
to the plays lacking them, as well as dividing some of the 
plays into acts and scenes, his edition was not a critical one. 
Nearly all his corrections were introduced on his own au- 
thority and without any support beyond that of suitability. 
If he recognized the necessity of collating early editions, he 
seems not to have profited much by the discovery. The 
method of carefully collating manuscripts and editions 
and of bringing to bear all possible knowledge upon the res- 
toration of a passage, a method such as was used in the 
classics, Rowe certainly did not follow. He noticed the 
need of correcting the text, suggested a way, and then con- 
tented himself with following the hne of least resistance 
in his correcting. 

Pope's edition, 1725, represents a more critical treatment 
of the text. One portion of an editor's duty, the most im- 
portant, he recognized and clearly stated, that of collating 
the text with the old copies. But this, for the most part, 
he failed to do, although possessing, according to his own 
word, the means. When it came to the removing of ob- 
scurity either by explanation or conjecture, he failed signally. 
For this task there is necessary the most critical spirit and 
the broadest knowledge of Elizabethan and pre-Elizabethan 
literature. Pope lacked both. Emendations he did make^ 
but the majority were adopted to reduce Shakespeare's 
meter to eighteenth-century regularity. For the rest of his 
conjectures he was wholly dependent upon his judgment, 
and anything that did not appeal to his taste ran the risk 

2 Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. V, pp. 298-299; and 
Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 73-76. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 63 

of being relegated to the bottom of the page. UnwilUng 
as he was to collate carefully, he must have been all the more 
unwilling to investigate, analyze, and study corrupt passages, 
or undertake to become familiar with the literature current 
in Shakespeare's time. Nor does he seem to have made 
any study of the peculiarities of Shakespeare's grammar 
or diction. The only supports of his critical method are 
collation, carelessly followed, metrical skill, and taste. A 
few of his emendations based upon taste have found their 
way into most modern editions, as well as a larger number 
of his metrical emendations ; yet these are upheld by no evi- 
dence and draw on no authorities. Elsewhere we find 
even his judgment unsafe, and we perceive no inclination 
to scrutinize carefully every doubt and draw out stores of 
knowledge to remove it.^ 

It seems rather strange that Pope should ever have under- 
taken the ''dull duty of an editor." Tonson appealed to 
him for an edition because he knew the poet's reputation 
would enhance the popularity of any undertaking, but why 
did Pope yield ? His inveterate animosity to textual critics 
finds expression as early as the Essay on Criticism, when he 
says 

Some on the leaves of ancient authors prey, 
Nor time nor moths e'er spoiled as much as they. 

In the preface to his Homer, and elsewhere, he speaks in a 
most derogatory manner of commentators. He was a 
member of the Scriblerus Club, and his associates were men 
of polite learning, antagonists to the new scholarship from 
the time of the Phalaris controversy. It hardly seems pos- 
sible that money was the motive, as Johnson asserts, when we 
remember that his Homer had removed all danger of financial 

3 For a full description and criticism of Rowe's and Pope's edi- 
tions, see Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. IV, V, VI. 



64 LEWIS THEOBALD 

needs; nor does Pope appear to have been very avaricious. 
The only explanation I can find for his undertaking such an 
uncongenial task is the desire for glory, always a ruling pas- 
sion with Pope. Realizing the honor that was attendant 
upon the restorer of classical texts, and knowing himself 
incapable of accomplishments in that field, he undertook to 
achieve glory in restoring Shakespeare.* This change of 
face necessitated some explanations to his friends, and 
''dull duty of an editor" was the compromise. On the 
publication of Shakespeare, Broome was ready with a pane- 
gyric, 

Shakespere rejoice! his hand thy Page refines. 
Now every Scene with native Brightness shines.'' 

But Pope's edition brought forth the first truly critical 
work on Shakespeare. This appeared in March, 1726, 
under the title, Shakespeare Restored: or a Specimen of the 
Many Errors, as well committed, as Unamended, hy Mr. 
Pope In his Late Edition of this Poet Designed Not only to 
correct the said Edition, hut to restore the True Reading of 
Shakespeare in all the Editions ever yet published. It is a large 
quarto volume, dedicated to John Rich and containing one 
hundred and ninety-four pages. The first one hundred and 
thirty-two pages are in large print and are devoted primarily 
to Hamlet. The rest, under the title of Appendix, is in 
smaller print and contains remarks on nearly all the plays. 
The Merchant of Venice and Troilus and Cressida lead the 
list with five remarks each, while Macbeth and Coriolanus 

* In the preface (p. xxxix) to his edition of Shakespeare Theobald 
frankly states that the reputation consequent upon textual work in 
the classics "invited me to attempt the method here." And in the 
introduction (p. v) to Shakespeare Restored he says he "shall venture 
to aim at some Httle Share of Reputation" in his emendations. On 
p. 193 of this work he refers again to reputation as the inspiration of 
the work. 

» To Mr. Pope, On his Works, 1726. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 65 

follow next with four each. A number of the plays are 
commented on only once. The first half of the "Appendix" 
is devoted to showing Pope's mistakes under these heads: 
emendation where there is no need of it ; maiming the author 
by unadvised degradations; bad choice in various readings 
and degradation of the better word ; and mistakes in giving 
the meaning of words. Besides these the critic shows Pope's 
mistakes in pointing and ''transpositions," and the inaccura- 
cies due to inattention to Shakespeare and his history. The 
rest of the ''Appendix," from page one hundred and sixty- 
five to the end, is devoted entirely to emendations. The 
nature of each remark is designated in the margin, so that 
the reader may be apprised of the content, by such terms 
as "false printing," "false pointing," "various reading," 
"passage omitted," "conjectural emendation," "emenda- 
tion," and the like. There are nearly a hundred corrections 
on Hamlet and a few over a hundred on the other plays. 
The only plays not mentioned by Theobald are The Two 
Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like it, and Twelfth Night. 

In his preface Theobald states that he had often declared 
in a number of companies the corrupt state Shakespeare's 
text was in, and had always expressed the wish that some one 
would retrieve its original purity, but being disappointed 
in Pope's effort, he had attempted it himself. While this 
statement may be essentially true, it hardly seems possible 
that the number of emendations and the numerous and per- 
tinent passages quoted in support of them could have been 
assembled within the compass of a single year; especially 
when we consider that all these were but a specimen drawn 
from "an ample Stock of Matter." ® For steeped as Theo- 
bald was in classical criticism, to recognize the corrupt 
state of Shakespeare was to contrive, in a more or less defi- 
nite way, corrections. A statement of Theobald seems to 
" Shakespeare Restored, p. 133. 



66 LEWIS THEOBALD 



prove this. In speaking of Pope's emendation of ''siege''* 
for ''sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, he says, 

"The Editor is not the first who has had the same Suspicion: 
And I may say, because I am able to prove it by Witnesses, it was 
a Guess of mine, before he had enter'd upon publishing Shake- 
speare." ^ 

The interest created by Pope's edition made possible the com- 
pletion and publication of his efforts. 

Theobald was unusually well equipped for the office of a 
textual critic on Shakespeare, He was a poet, a poor one 
indeed, but still with talent enough to make him escape the 
pitfalls that proved disastrous on more than one occasion 
to the purely logical mind of Bentley. Furthermore, the 
very fact that his poetic genius was slight served him in 
good stead, for besides admitting of tireless industry, it 
prevented him from seeking to merge his own ideas with 
those of the work under consideration, and restrained him 
from relying too much upon his own judgment of the poetic 
value of a passage. 

Besides this he was thoroughly conversant with the stage. 
The author himself of several dramas and various operas and 
pantomimes, he had been thrown into intimate relations 
with John Rich, lessee of Lincoln's Inn Fields theater. Both 
by experience and observation he was familiar with stage- 
craft and the theater, and thus in a position better to under- 
stand the causes of many of the corruptions in Shakespeare, 
especially stage directions that had crept into the text and 
lines assigned to the wrong characters. 

But more important than either of the above qualifications 
was his intimate knowledge of Shakespeare's thought and 
diction. We have already seen that the phraseology of 

^ Idem, p. 82. Also see his letter to the Daily Journal, November 
26, 1728, where he speaks of having spent twelve years studying the 
text of Shakespeare. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 67 

The Cave of Poverty showed an unusual knowledge of Shake- 
speare's style. The passages quoted in A Complete Key to the 
What D'ye Call It (if by Theobald) further prove his famili- 
arity with the plays. The ninety odd numbers of The 
Censor are strewn with references to or discussions of them, 
in which Hamlet and Othello seem to be his favorites.^ In 
some of his comments he shows a distinct departure from 
current ideas. Speaking of Julius Caesar, he says, 

As to particular Irregularities, it is not to be expected that a Genius 
like Shakespear's should be judg'd by the Laws of Aristotle, and 
the other Prescribers to the Stage; it will be sufficient to fix a 
Character of Excellence to his Performances, if there are in them 
a Number of beautiful Incidents, true and exquisite Turns of 
Nature and Passion, fine and delicate Sentiments, uncommon 
Images, and great Boldnesses of Expression.' 

The final testimony to his study of Shakespeare is his adapta- 
tion of Richard II, where he seeks to imitate the great 
dramatist's style. 

And last of all, Theobald brought to his work a wide 
knowledge of the classics and the methods of classical scholar- 
ship. He says, 

As my principal Diversion in reading is a strict Conversation 
with the best old classics, Virgil was the Choice of my last Night's 
Study. In Authors of this Sort where I am sure to be entertained 
in every Page, my Custom is to take my Chance for the Subject, 
and begin my Amusement where the Book first opens.^** 

Elsewhere he styles himself ''an admirer of antiquity" and 
"a lover of antiquity." ^^ Especially worthy of note is 
his interest in the Greek drama, clearly disclosed in his 
translations from the same, in an age that, devoted to the 

' References to Hamlet in Nos. 18, 54, 83, 90, 93; and to Othello 
in Nos. 16, 95, 36. » Censor, No. 70. 

1° Censor, No. 18. " Idem, No. 5. 



68 LEWIS THEOBALD 

study and imitation of the later classics, knew the Attic 
drama chiefly through Aristotle. 

I could wish heartily, the Poets of our Times would follow the 
Model of Sophocles, and rather lay their Distresses on Incidents 
produced by some such uncontrollable Impulse than to let the 
Dagger and poison Cup be at the Discretion of a Villain. 

Apropos of this he praises Othello. But Aeschylus more than 
any interested him. The translation of his plays was the 
only translation upon which Theobald attempted to embark 
on his own account. In The Censor, No. 60, he discusses 
Greek tragedy, but soon confines himself to Aeschylus, 
translating a long passage from Prometheus; he refuses to 
subscribe to the ''critics of every age," who rank him below 
Sophocles and Euripides. He anticipates Victor Hugo in 
seeing a similarity between Aeschylus and Shakespeare in 
the majesty and sublimity of their verse. 

There were some phases of classical scholarship with which 
Theobald was not in entire sympathy, influenced, as he 
undoubtedly was, by the attitude of the literati and polite 
schools of scholarship. Throughout The Censor we find 
slurs at antiquaries and the Royal Society. This last had 
been the center of the ancients and moderns controversy, 
and Theobald was a stanch upholder of the ancients, although 
not admitting any particular degeneration in the moderns. 
Any attempt to reduce the antiquity of a production to a 
more recent date he resented with the accusation that the 
moderns did not wish to allow any more than necessary to 
the ancients. When higher criticism made use of historical 
philology and chronology in disputing the antiquity of an 
author, Theobald was prone to disagree and to doubt the 
value of those two studies. Nor was he loath to stigmatize 
efforts in such minute studies as pedantic. ^^ 

^2 For attacks on virtuosi, chronologers, and other minute scholars, 
see Censor, Nos. 68 and 91. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 69 

This naturally led him to disagree with Bentley in regard 
to Phalaris, although he always mentions the great critic 
with respect: ^^ 

I remember the learned Dr. Bentley has made it one of his Ex- 
ceptions to Phalaris's Epistles being Genuine, that the Tyrant 
has made use of some proverbial Sentences which are recorded as 
the Inventions of Authors of a much later Date, and therefore 
Phalaris could not write those Epistles, because he has used some 
Sayings that were not in Being in his Age. I confess, I am not 
totally satisfied with this Argument, I look upon it as a Hardship 
next to an Impossibihty to determine strictly the Periods, and 
Origins of such Sentences; and were it not a work that would 
savour too much of Pedantry and Affectation of Book-Learning, 
I could produce several of their sententious Fragments, which 
have been severally attributed to five or six distinct Authors, and 
that on the Testimonies of great Hands. ^'* 

He maintains the same opinion of the poetry of Musaeus, 
for whom he had a special liking. ^^ In his essay on the Hero 
and Leander prefixed to his translation of the same in The 
Grove, he does attempt ''a Piece of Chronological Criticism." 
Although expressing his inability to come to a decision con- 

" It is possible Theobald may have been influenced by regard for 
his patron, Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery, to whom he dedicated his 
Richard II. 

^* Censor, No. 26. 

" Censor, No. 39, May 23, 1715: "I have always read this small 
Remain of Musaeus, with Pleasure enough to consider it the Product 
of that Antique Greek, however his Title to it has been of late dis- 
puted. There has reigned a Spirit of Detraction for some Years in 
the World, which has labour'd to strip the Ancients of their Honours, 
on purpose to adorn some more Modern Brow. I cannot conceive 
that this springs from a fair and generous Emulation; but that finding 
themselves unable to come up to the Strokes of Antiquity, as Chronol- 
ogers often do to gain a Point, they draw down Authors to their own 
Dates, to prove that all Merit in Writing was not confin'd to the Aeras 
of Paganism." 



70 LEWIS THEOBALD 

cerning the antiquity of the poem, and dechning the ''Ped- 
antry of amassing all the Authorities and Opinions," he 
mentions Stobaeus, Athenaeus, Pausanias, and opposes 
Scaliger and Heinsius to Vossius, Isaac Casaubon, and 
Paraeus. He shows little sympathy with historical philol- 
ogy, as is evident from the following passage, where he 
seems to be 'ooking at Bentley: 

There are Critics in the World, I know, who look upon Greek 
to have such a certain Mark in its Mouth, that they can precisely 
determine upon the Age of any Composition in that Language. 
For my own Part, I confess myself a Novice in these niceties; 
and therefore design to let the Matter rest barely upon the fact of 
Probability. 

Yet he pays a tribute to the robust critic, when he says, 

The Objection which is of the greatest Weight with me against 
the Antiquity of this Poem, is what a Great Man in Critical Learn- 
ing made against the Epistles of Phalaris, the Silence and Pre- 
termission of Authors during a long Series of Ages. 

This attempt at higher criticism is of no worth and little 
significance, although in the mention of authors and au- 
thorities Theobald shows his wide and careful reading of the 
classics and classical critics. But on one phase of classical 
scholarship, the most prevalent during this time, Theobald 
placed great value. We have already quoted the passage 
from The Censor which expresses in most exaggerated lan- 
guage his regard for textual criticism. ^^ Even if he was not 
in sympathy with much of the minute scholarship and learn- 
ing of his time, he was a complete convert to the new pursuit 
of scholars. In this respect he resembles Thirlby, who, as 
we have seen before, scoffed at chronology and other phases 
of scholarship, but was praise itself in regard to verbal criti- 
cism. Such was the impression Bentley's critical accomplish- 
es Ante, Chap. II, p. 49. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 71 

ments made on men of his day, that Uteral criticism was 
allowed honor where investigations of a different nature 
were denied it. 

Furthermore, Theobald was intimately acquainted with 
the work of the great textual critic. We have already noticed 
his interest in the dissertation on Phalaris, and references 
to the controversy occur elsewhere. ^^ He quotes from 
Bentley's Epistle to Mill a passage which encourages him 
in his work on Shakespeare.^^ He expresses the highest 
praise for Bentley's emendations of Menander and Philemon. ^^ 
He even models his edition of Shakespeare upon Bentley's 
Amsterdam Horace. ^° Everywhere he mentions Bentley 
with respect, and often praise, styling him the ''learned Dr. 
Bentley" ^^ and "a Great Man in Critical Learning." ^2 
In upholding the value of literal criticism he appeals to 
Bentley's success, ''But I no more pretend to do justice to 
that Great Man's Character, than I would be thought to set 
my own poor Merit, or the Nature of this Work, in Competi- 
tion with his." ^^ 

Thoroughly conversant as Theobald was with classical 
criticism, it was only natural that he should have been struck 
with the similarity between the state of the text of Shake- 
speare and that of the texts of Greek and Latin authors. 
Nor was this similarity superficial, ^^ a fact clearly stated 
in the preface to Shakespeare Restored: 

" Censor, Nos. 8 and 9. Preface to A Complete Key to the What 
D'ye Call it (if Theobald wrote it). 

^8 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 313. 

^® Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 

2° Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. II, p. 621. 

21 Censor, No. 26. 

22 Essay prefixed to his translation of Hero and Leander, published 
in The Grove, 1721. 

23 Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 

24 "Such is the process by which the text of Shakespeare has been 



72 LEWIS THEOBALD 

"As Shakespeare stands, or at least ought to stand, in the Nature 
of a Classic, and indeed he is corrupt enough to pass for one of 
the oldest Stamp, every one who has a Talent and Ability this 
Way, is at Liberty to make his Comments and Emendations 
upon him." 

Having recognized the similarity, he had only to apply 
the classical method. This method Theobald got directly 
from Bentley. As noted above, he was familiar with the 
most important works of the editor of Horace, and in this 
very work of Shakespeare Restored refers to him twice, once 
in a most complimentary way. A comparison of a few of 
Theobald's notes with some of Bentley's shows conclusively 
that the former was consciously imitating the method of the 
latter. 

A line in Horace, Bk. I, ode 3, 1. 19, reads in the main, 
''Qui vidit mare turgidum." Bentley comments thus: ^^ 

The Venetian edition, 1478, which I think was the first of all, 
has "turgidum," but the German edition of Loscherus, 1498, 
"turbidum." However, that first reading has occupied almost 
all the editions since. Furthermore, the manuscripts, even the 
best, are divided, some showing this reading some that, and surely 
.either can be tolerated with sufficient propriety. 

Prudentius — Quae turgidum quondam mare 
Avienus — Fluctibus instabile et glauci vada turgida 
ponti. 
Thus Virgil — Timidum mare; and the Greek aXiov oTSfia. I 
have scarcely any doubt that "turbidum" came from Horace's 
hand, because it is the braver epithet, and excites the greater 
terror. 

Lucretius v. 999 — nee turbida ponti Aequora 

Ovid. Tristia I, 10. Pectora sunt ipso turbidiora man 

evolved — a process precisely similar to that undergone by any classical 
text. The quartos and folios represent the work of copyists — that of 
editing follows." — Cambridge History of English Lit., vol. V, p. 297. 
" This and other notes of Bentley are translated from the Latin. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 73 

The same, Hero and Leander — 

Ipsa vides caelum pice nigrius, et freta ventis 
Turbida. 

And the same — Cumque mea fiunt turbida mente freta 

concussi fretum 
Seneca — Here. Oet. 456 — Cessante vento; turbidum 

explicui mare. 
Avienus in Arateis, — Non tum freta turbida pinu Quis 

petat. 
And again — Quantum suspense linquit vada turbida 

caelo. 
And — Turbida certantes converrunt aequora Cauri 
And — Si fugiunt volucres raptim freta turbida Nerei 

So that it is almost to be feared that in the passages from 
Prudentius and Avienus, cited above, '* turbidum" ought to be 
substituted. 

Let us now turn to a note of Theobald's on a line in Ham- 
let, Act I, Sc. 7. Hamlet is speaking to the ghost. 

So Horridly to shake our Disposition. 

I suspect in the Word Horridly, a literal Deviation to have been 
made from the Poet by his Copyists ... I think it ought to be re- 
stored thus 

So Horribly to shake our Disposition 

The change of Horridly into Horribly is very trivial as to the Literal 
Part; and therefore, I hope, the Reason for the Change will be 
something more considerable. 'Tis true, horrid and horrible 
must be confessed to bear in themselves the same Force and Sig- 
nification as horridum and horribile were wont to do among the 
Latines. But horrid, in the most common acceptation and Use, 
seems to signify rather hideous, uncouth, ugly, enormous, than 
terrible or frightful ; and it is generally so appUed by our Author. 
I remember a passage in his King Lear, where it particularly stands 
for ugly. 



74 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Lear, p. 77. 

. . . See thy self, Devil; 

Proper Deformity seems not in the Fiend 

So horrid as in Woman. 

I cannot, however, deny, but that our Poet sometimes employs 
the Word horrid in the sense of frightful, terrible. But every 
observing Reader of his Works must be aware that he does it spar- 
ingly, and, ten times for every once, seems fond to use horrible 
and terrible. It is obvious that he prefers both these Terms, as 
more sonorous and emphatical than horrid; and the Proof that 
he does so, is, (which laid the Foundation of Conjecture here,) 
that he almost constantly chuses them, even when the Numbers 
of his Verse naturally require horrid. I shall subjoin a few In- 
stances of both for Confirmation; to which I could have amass' d 
twenty times as many, but these are enough, at least, to excuse 
me, tho' I should be deceived in Judgment, from the Censure 
of being too hypercritical in my Observation. 

Tempest pag. 73 

Where but ev'n now with strange and several Noises 
Of roaring, shrieking, howling, jingling chains. 
And more Diversity of Sounds, all horrible, 
We were awak'd. 

Lear pag. 41. 

And with this horrible Object, from low farms, 
Poor pelting Villages, etc. 

And again yog. 55 

I tax not you, you Elements, with Unkindness; 
I never gave you Kingdom, call'd you Children, 
You owe me no Subscription. Then let fall 
Your horrible Pleasure; — 

And again, pag. 83 

Glouc. Methinks the Ground is even. 
Edgar. . . . Horrible steep. 
Hark do you hear the Sea? 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 75 

Antony and Cleopatra, pag. 342 

Hence horrible Villian! or I'll spurn thine Eyes 
Like Balls before me! 

Macbeth, pag. 561 

. . . Hence, horrible Shadow! 
Unreal Mock'ry, hence! . . . ^^ 

I have chosen these two emendations because the changes 
advocated are so similar. Bentley prefers "turbidum" 
to "turgidum," Theobald ''horribly" to ''horridly," and 
both on the ground of taste and preponderance of usage, 
yet at the same time allowing the possibility of the regular 
reading. There is in both the same critical attitude toward 
the text, the same kind of emendation, and precisely the 
same method of supporting the emendation. ^^ 

Again, consider Bentley's note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm. 
VI, V. 20. 

Hoc fonte derivata clades 

In Patriam populumque fluxit. 

^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 41. 

^ Dr. King has a burlesque note on this emendation of Bentley's, 
which is equally applicable to Theobald's if we change "G" to "D." 
"There is a great controversie in this place; the two candidates are 
'turgidum' and Hurbidum,'; the doctor takes the poll, summons 
the authors to vote, then casts up the books, and declares in favor 
of 'turbidum';" which, says he, "is more forcible and more terrible 
than 'turgidum.' Now all the difference lies between two letters 
B and G: and the Dr. is for the first. As for G, I own there is much 
to be said in its behalf; there are several sorts of oaths of great force 
and terror, in which it is of singular use and virtue: 'Gog, Gorgon, 
Gun-powder'; and many other frightful things begin with this very 
letter. As for B, I do not find, though it stands high in the Alphabet, 
that it is altogether so terrible; there is indeed a conjurer or two, and 
some few devils whose names set out with a B; but 1 had forgot that 
our high and mighty Scholiast gives his 'Mark': and therefore let all 
readers keep their distance, and for the future approach this dreadful 
letter with fear and reverence." The Odes E pedes, and Carmen Seen- 
tare of Horace. In Latin and English : 1713. 



76 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Thus indeed all the MSS read without exception, but never will 
they prevail upon me to cast my ballot for this reading. For 
why should I? He says that disasters arising from adulteries as 
from a fountain, flow into the people and the fatherland. What 
difference is there between fatherland and people? unless, per- 
chance, those most vicious morals flowed into patriam terram 
only. Our poet was not so jejune or lacking in judgment as to 
foist in that superfluous synonym, as if it were something different. 
I have little doubt but Horace wrote thus 

Hoc fonte deriva clades 

Inque Patres populumque fluxit: 

into the patres and the populus, that is into all of Roman citizens 
both patricians and senators, as well as Plebs. This solemn for- 
mula is in every kind of writing which we will collect in full measure 
in order that we may sustain the boldness of this conjecture by 
weight of nmnbers and thick phalanxes. 

Virgil Aen. IV, 682. 

Extinxti me teque, soror, populumque patresque 

Sidonios, urbemque tuam. 
IX. 192 

Aeneam acciri omnes populusque patresque 

Exposcunt. 
Ovidius Metam. XV. 

Extinctum Latiaeque nurus, populusque patresque 

Deflevere Numan. 
MartiaUs VIII, 50 

Vescitur omnis eques tecum populusque patresque. 

And he continues to give many more passages where the 
phrase is used. 

With the foregoing compare this note of Theobald : 

Macbeth, Page 554. 

We have Scorched the Snake, not kill'd it . . . 
She'll dose, and be herself; . . . 

This is a Passage which has all along pass'd current thro' the 
Editions, and hkewise upon the Stage; and yet, I dare affirm, 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 77 

is not our Author's Reading. What has a Snake, closing again, 
to do with its being scorched? Scorching would never either 
separate, or dilate, its Parts; but rather make them instantly con- 
tract and shrivel. Shakespeare, I am very well persuaded, has 
this Notion in his Head, (which how true in Fact, I will not pre- 
tend to determine) that if you cut a Serpent or Worm asunder, 
in several Pieces; there is such an unctious quality in their Blood, 
that the dismember'd Parts, being only plac'd near enough to 
touch one another, will cement and become as whole as before 
the Injury was receiv'd. The Application of this Thought is to 
Duncan, the murther'd King, and his surviving Sons; Macbeth 
considers them so much as Members of the Father, that tho' he 
has cut off the old Man, he would say he has not entirely kill'd 
him; but he'll cement and close again in the Lives of his Sons 
to the Danger of Macbeth. If I am not deceived therefore, our 
Poet certainly wrote thus; 

We have Scotched the Snake, not kill'd it . . . 
She'll close, and be herself; ... 

To Scotch, however the GeneraUties of our Dictionaries happen 
to omit the Word, signifies to notch, slash, cut with Twigs, Sword, 
etc., and so Shakespeare more than once has used it in his works. 
So Coriolanus, Page 182. 

He was too hard for him directly, to say the Troth 
on't; 

Before Corioli, he Scotched him and notch'd him. 
And so again, Anthony and Cleopatra, Page 393. 

We'll beat them into Bench-Holes, I have yet 

Room for six Scotches more. 

To show how little we ought to trust implicitly to Dictionaries for 
Etymologies, we need no better Proof than from Bailey in his Ex- 
phcation of the Term Scotch-CoUops ; he tells us that it means slices 
of Veal fix'd after the Scotch Manner : But, besides that that Na- 
tion are not famous for the elegance of their Cookery, it is more 
natural, and I dare say more true, to allow that it ought to be 



78 LEWIS THEOBALD 

wrote Scotcht-CoUops, i.e. Collops, or slices slash'd cross and 
cross, before they are put on the coals.^^ 

The same method is apparent in both notes. First we 
have the critical doubt. Bentley is unwilling to let the usual 
reading stand because it produces tautology, Theobald be- 
cause it is repugnant to the context. Both are willing to 
depart from all manuscripts or previous authorities. Both 
adopt an interrogatory attitude, and express their doubts 
in rhetorical questions. Here, as elsewhere in his notes, 
Theobald follows Bentley in introducing first the customary 
reading, viewing it from all sides, examining and rejecting 
explanations, and thus reducing the reader to a state of 
perplexity and expectancy until the psychological moment 
for the emendation. Bentley very seldom introduces his 
emendation first, a characteristic that is one of the ear-marks 
of his method. By necessity Theobald's preliminary re- 
marks are shorter than Bentley's, for the classical critic has 
far more readings to consider, more explanations to overturn, 
owing to the previous work done on the classics. ^^ There 

^' Shakespeare Restored, p. 185. 

2^ The irrepressible Dr. King has taken off these preambles in 
hmnorous fashion: "One of the greatest pleasures in Poetry is ex- 
pectation, and next to this is surprise; the first is more lasting, the 
other more moving — Now that which is so much admired in poetry, 
the Dr. is resolved to try in criticism ; when he found his readers divided 
in this place about two different lections, Daunias and Daunia, with 
what pomp and ostentation he sets out in discussing this affair? How 
he leads us thro many great and noble adventures, the confutation of 
Nic. Heinsius, the power of a Greek declension, the story of the Ap- 
pian Fountain, Direction how to pick up a whore in Rome, the mag- 
nificance of Agrippa, the Travels of Daunus the Illyrian, the stupidity 
of the Ubrarians, and so on; till having filled us brimful with expec- 
tation of the issue, he at last bursts out at once upon us with this 
final decision. 'That we may read it which way we please.'" The 
Odes, Epodes and Carmen Seculare of Horace. In Latin and English. 
MDCCXIII. Note on Bentley's note on Bk. I, Ode 22, 1. 14. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 79 

is cleverness in this method, for when the reader is convinced 
that the accepted reading is wrong, and is completely per- 
plexed as to what the real reading is, the plausibiHty of an 
emendation is magnified several fold. 

After the emendation has been proposed the next step in 
the process is the conjectural criticism or the supporting of 
the change. Before applause at their sagacity has died 
away, Theobald and Bentley are hard at it reinforcing their 
emendations. It becomes Bentley's task to show that the 
expression ^'patres populusque" is a usual and preferred one, 
which he does by quoting from Virgil, Ovid, Martial, and 
others where the phrase is found. In a similar manner 
Theobald takes it upon himself to show that Shakespeare 
uses ''scotch'd" in a sense agreeable to his correction; this 
he does by quoting passages from Coriolanus and Antony 
and Cleopatra, where the word is used. While this is by 
no means the only method employed by both critics in 
support of a correction, it is the one most generally used and 
relied upon. A glance through the Horace and Shakespeare 
Restored will show how consistently this means of substantiat- 
ing readings or conjectures is adopted. 

But Theobald's remarks are by no means devoted entirely 
to emendations. In overthrowing a definition of Pope's 
he follows Bentley's method. In Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 5, 
Pope defines ''unanel'd" as meaning ''no knell rung." 

I don't pretend to know what Glossaries Mr. Pope may have con- 
sulted, and trusts to; but whose soever they are, I am sure their 
Comment is very singular upon the Word I am about to mention. 
I cannot find any Authority to countenance unaneaVd in signifying 
no knell rung. This is, if I mistake not, what the Greeks were 
used to call an airai Aeyo/Acvov an Interpretation that never was 
used but once. Nor, indeed, can I see how this participial Adjec- 
tive should be formed from the Substantive Knell. It could not 
possibly throw out the K, or receive in the A. We have an Instance 



80 LEWIS THEOBALD 

in our Poet himself, where the participial Adjective of the Verb 
simple from this Substantive retains the K; and so Mr. Pope 
writes it there. 

Macbeth, pag. 598. 

Had I as many Sons as I have Hairs, 
I would not wish them to a fairer Death; 
And so his Knell is KnoU'd. 
The Compound Adjective, therefore, from that Derivation must 
have been written, unknell'd; (or, unknolVd;) a word which will 
by no Means fill up the Poet's Verse, were there no stronger Rea- 
sons to except against it ; as it unluckily happens, there are. Let 
us see then what Sense the Word unaneVd then bears. Skinner 
in his Lexicon of Old and Obsolete English Terms, tells us, that 
Anealed is unctus; a Praep. Tent: an and die Oleum: so 
that unanealed must consequently signify, ^^Not being anointed^ 
or not having the extream Unction." 

Theobald then substitutes a variant reading, ''disappointed," 
for ''anointed," which follows "unaneal'd," and ends his 
note thus : 

So that, this Reading and this Sense being admitted, the Tautol- 
ogy is taken away; and the Poet very finely makes his Ghost 
complain of these four dreadful Hardships, viz: That he had been 
dispatch'd out of Life without receiving the (Hoste, or) Sacra^ 
ment; without being reconciled to Heaven and absolved; without 
the Benefit of extream Unction; or, without so much as a Confes- 
sion made of his Sins. The having no Knell rung, I think, is not 
a Point of equal Consequence to any of these; especially, if we 
consider that the Roman Church admits the Efficacy of Praying 
for the Dead.^^ 

In a note on line 450 of the Clouds of Aristophanes, con- 
tributed to Kuster's edition of that poet, Bentley takes up 
the word /uuitioXoixos- 

This word the schohast, Photius, Suidas, Eustathius and others 
allow. Hesychius has /LtaraioXoixos. Some of them derive 
3° Shakespeare Restored, pp. 53-55. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 81 

the word from fidraLo^, others from fidnov (which they wish 
to mean €Xa;(i(rTos) or from /utartov, a kind of measure. All 
these explanations flow from this one place in Aristophanes, and 
a faulty one, too, if I am not mistaken. For by the law of 
anapaests fiaTtoA.otxos should have the first syllable long; there- 
fore it is not from fAanov which has the first syllable short. In- 
deed with whom as sponsor should we admit this fxarLov, whether 
a 'very small something' or a 'measure'? Who has said it else- 
where, who by hearsay has heard it? But granted that we con- 
ceed the grammarians this, then what sense arises here? fxaraio- 
Aoixos, 'a licker of vanities,' a 'vain licker': and /lanoXotxos, 
'a licker of infinitesimals,' or a 'hcker of measures.' Surely here 
are the dehriums of grammarians. With the slightest change I 
correct thus Srpo^ts, a/oyoAeos /AarTvoAotxos. Moreover you well 
know what Marrvr} is; without doubt, desserts, rich viands; as 
turdi; and other things of that nature. You know that fine of 
Martial — ' Inter quadrupedes mattya prima lepus — ' You also 
know from Athanaeus that Aristophanes has used the word 
fiaTTvrj elsewhere. MaTTvoA.otxos, therefore, as kvlo-oXoixos, licker 
of sweetmeats; which not only can signify gluttony but also im- 
pudence, so that it agrees with the other epithets here, dpa<rv^, 
ToXfirjpos etc. 

Although arranged in somewhat different order, the ele- 
ments of both notes are the same. Bentley claims that the 
explanations of /MartoAoixos are based on a single occurrence 
of the word, and likewise Theobald holds that Pope's 
definition of "unanel'd" is an aira^ keyofievov "an Inter- 
pretation that never was used but once." Bentley insinu- 
ates that the current explanations of the Greek word makes 
no sense in the passage; Theobald says that Pope's defini- 
tion "is not a point of equal Consequence" to the other 
hardships. Bentley shows that fxanoXoLxos cannot be 
derived from fidriov on metrical grounds; Theobald makes 
it plain that "unanel'd" cannot be derived from "unknelPd," 
for the "k" could not have dropped out or the "a" been 
inserted, and that "unknelled" cannot stand for metrical 



82 LEWIS THEOBALD 

reasons. Bentley bases his reading upon fmrrvrj; Theobald 
bases his upon ''anealed." For authority Bentley refers 
to Martial and Athenaeus, Theobald to Skinner's Lexicon. 
Bentley concludes by stating that his correction agrees 
with the other epithets; in his conclusion Theobald asserts 
that his reading is on a plane of equality with the other 
hardships suffered by Hamlet's father. 

Theobald has been criticized for his elaborate corrections 
of punctuation, but in this he was also following Bentley. 
One of the latter's notes on Horace reads : ^^ 

Proeliis Audax neque te silebo Liber. From the times of the 
scholiast Acron, there has been no one who has not punctuated 
the verse in this manner, just as if Liber proeliis Audax was said 
by Horace. We ought justly to be indignant at that which has 
been so carelessly done. For although it must be confessed that 
the victorious Bacchus with the dance of his satyrs, and Maenads 
had penetrated to farthest India; whence on this account he is 
called brave by Valerius Flaccus. 
V. 494. 

quotque ante secuti 
Inde nee audacem Bacchum nee Persea reges. 

And in the Gigantomachia he lacerated Rhoecus in the form of 
a lion: but not from one or two acts, but from the continued nature 
and character of Bacchus, must this epithet have been given. 
And yet Bacchus is nearly always ridiculed by the poets, as if he 
were the most meticulous and effeminate of all the gods. Only 
look at the Batrachi of Aristophanes; where the most facetious 
of poets makes wonderful jokes of his cowardice and timidity. 
Why say more? This epithet must be referred to Pallas, not to 
Liber; and the faulty pointing corrected in this manner: 

Proximos illi tamen occupavit 

Pallas honores 
Proeliis audax. Neque te silebo, 
Liber. 

31 Bk. 1, Carm. 12, v. 2L 



SHAKESPEAKE RESTORED 83 

Which suits Pallas as aptly as can be, and he evidently must be 
blind that does not see it. The poets adorn her here and there 
with these titles: BeUica, bellatrix, beUipotens, beUigera; etc. 
and also the Greeks. 

VirgiHus Aen. XI. 

Armipotens beUi praeses Tritonia Virgo. 
Statins Silv. IV. 5. 

Regina bellorum Virago. 

Theobald corrects the punctuation in a passage from 
Troilus and Cressidaj Act. IV, Sc. I.^^ 

Troilus and Cressida, Page 74. 

Aene. And thou shall hunt a Lion that willflie 

With his Face back in human gentleness: 
Welcome to Troy . . . Now, by Anchises's 

Life, 
Welcome indeed . . . 

Thus this passage has all along been read, and never understood, 
as I suppose, by any of the Editors. The second and fourth 
Folio Editions make a small Variation of the Pointing, but do not 
at all mend the Matter. I don't know what Conception the Edi- 
tors have had to themselves of a Lion's flying in humane Gentleness : 
To Me, I confess, it seems strange Stuff. If a Lion fly with his Face 
turn'd backward, it is fighting all the Way in his Retreat; And 
in this Manner it is Aeneas professes that He shall fly, when he's 
hunted. But where then are the Sjnnptoms of humane Gentle- 
ness? Mr. Dry den, in his Alteration of this Play from Shake- 
speare, has acted with great caution upon this Passage: For not 
giving himself the Trouble to trace the Author's Meaning, or to 
rectify the Mistakes of his Editors, he closes the Sentence at . . . 
with his face backward ; and entirely leaves out, in humane Gentle- 
ness. In short, the Place is flat Nonsense as it stands, only for 
Want of true Pointing. I think, there is no Question to be made, 
but that Shakespeare intended it thus : 

** Shakespeare Restored, pp. 147, 148. 



84 LEWIS THEOBALD 

And Thou shall hunt a Lion, that will flie 
With his Face back. . . . In humane Gentleness, 
Welcome to Troy; . . . Now, by Anchises' Life, 
Welcome, indeed: . . . 

Aeneas, as soon as ever he has return'd Diomede's Brave, stops 
short and corrects himself for expressing so much Fury in a Time 
of Truce; from the fierce Soldier becomes the Courtier at once; 
and, remembering his enemy as Guest and an Ambassador^ 
welcomes him as such to the Trojan Camp. This Correction, 
which I have here made, slight as it is, not only restores good 
Sense, but admirably keeps up the Character which Aeneas had 
before given Agamemnon of his Trojan Nation, Page 27. 

Courtiers as free, as debonair, unarm'd. 

As bending Angels; that's their Fame in peace: 

But when they would seem Soldiers, they have Galls, 

Good Arms, strong Joints, true Swords, and Jove's Accord, 

Nothing so full of Heart. 

Each critic calls attention to the fact that the passage 
has long labored under the wrong pointing. Bentley shows 
that the phrase '' proeliis audax" is not applicable to Bacchus, 
by quotations from various sources, while Theobald shows 
that the phrase ''in humane gentleness" is not applicable 
to the lion described, by appeal to common sense and ref- 
erence to Dryden's alteration of the play. Bentley asserts 
that his pointing gives an epithet to Pallas which suits her 
"as aptly as can be," and for proof quotes passages from 
Virgil and Statius, where such a character is given her. 
Theobald's pointing gives the disputed phrase to the Trojans, 
which, he says, ''admirably keeps up the Character" of 
those people, and for proof he quotes from the play under 
discussion, where such a character is given them. 

The notes quoted above are by no means exceptional, 
and it would not be a hard matter to find parallels in Bentley's 
Horace for the majority of the notes in Shakespeare Restored. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 85 

In general, the selections have been made because of small 
resemblances; the more general and fundamental similari- 
ties are apparent in nearly all the notes. In proposing an 
emendation, correcting punctuation, and defending a variant 
or explaining a current reading Theobald follows closely in 
the footsteps of Bentley. No example has been given of 
the defense or explanation of a reading, but it is easy to make 
a comparison of the notes on Horace, Bk. I, Ode XVIII,. 
V. 14; Bk. Ill, Ode XXVII, v. 48; and Bk. I, Sermo VI, 
V. 79, with the notes found on pages 61, 109, and 128 of 
Shakespeare Restored. Yet there is little use in particulariz- 
ing, as almost any two notes having a similar purpose will 
serve. 

Theobald's notes easily fall into the divisions made for 
classical textual criticism — the critical doubt, emendation,, 
and conjectural criticism. ^^ In the critical doubt he brings 
grammatical, historical, and aesthetic tests to play upon 
the various readings. By a close study of the passage and 
the context he may show where there is bad grammar or a 
violation of metrical laws. Sometimes he points out that 
the current reading is contrary to the context, or that the 
passage possesses little or no meaning. Sometimes he 
proves that there stands in the text a word which does not 
exist, or which cannot have the meaning necessary to the 
intelligibility of the passage. All this he does by scrutinizing 
the text with critical care and producing his proofs with 
learning and logic. In these last Theobald may be far 
inferior to Bentley, yet their presence is apparent on every 
page. There is no jumping to conclusions, neither is there 
any blind acceptation of unintelligible passages, but in their 
stead a careful weighing of evidence, a logical handling 
of facts toward the ascertaining of a corruption. In a, 
critical light he examines everything. 

33 See ante, Chap. II, note 29. 



86 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Bentley's grammatical criticism contains the same ele- 
ments. Especially does he study the context, even sum- 
marizing it in many of his notes. In such cases he shows 
that the suspected word is either directly contrary to the 
context, or else renders the whole passage absurd and un- 
intelligible. Again he may prove, by etymology or other- 
wise, that a certain word is impossible, or that it cannot 
bear the meaning necessary to the sense of the passage. He 
is quick to note a mistake in grammar and is thorough in 
his investigations of a grammatical law. In some of his 
notes he shows faults in meter, a far more certain element 
in the classics than in English, though Pope depended largely 
upon it in his corrections, and Theobald not infrequently 
emended for metrical reasons. Intelligibility, grammar, 
and meter are the fundamentals of grammatic criticism with 
both Theobald and Bentley. Also the style and manner 
of showing violations in these are the same. Especially 
prominent is the use of rhetorical questions, and they are 
asked with the same gusto by both critics. 

Historical criticism proves a corruption by showing that 
knowledge derived from other sources contradicts the passage 
under observation. Bentley's extensive and organized knowl- 
edge enabled him to use this with wonderful success, evi- 
dence of which is seen throughout all his works. One of 
the notes quoted above furnishes an example of this kind of 
criticism. According to the current punctuation Bacchus 
was characterized as warlike, but knowledge gained from 
other writers shows that he was of quite an opposite nature. 
Theobald likewise uses historical criticism a great deal. 
Pages 159-165 are entirely devoted to showing the mistakes 
of Pope due to inadvertence to history. From his knowledge 
of the story of Theseus, Theobald shows that in A Mid- 
summer Night's Dream "Pergenia" should be ''Pergune";^ 

^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 87 

from his knowledge of English history he shows that in 
King John ''Anjou" should be substituted for '* Anglers"; ^^ 
and from his knowledge of Latin literature he believes that 
*'love" should be changed to ''Jove" in Much Ado About 
Nothing. ^^ 

Both Theobald and Bentley make bold to engage in aes- 
thetic criticism, the most dangerous of the three. Here it 
would not be rash to grant the Shakespearean critic precedence 
over the classical scholar. The logical nature of Bentley's 
mind, which was of so much assistance in establishing 
fact and restoring meaning to unintelligible passages, was 
more of a hindrance than a help in judging literature by 
artistic standards. He could not overcome the tendency 
to inject logical consistency into a poetical passage. Though 
his Horace furnishes many instances of this fault, the shining 
example is his edition of Milton, where his notes are logical 
enough, but with a logic that makes poetry prose. In his 
classical notes he depended upon his literary judgment with 
every sign of assurance, expressing his criticisms with such 
words as "jejune," "otiose," "rough," and the like. Aes- 
thetic criticism requires more than knowledge, more than 
logic. It requires a certain innate perception, nourished 
by a close and sympathetic study of the best in literature. 
An aesthetic critic must be a potential artist. 

Here Theobald shows his superiority. He was a poet, 
poor indeed but with judgment superior to his accomplish- 
ments. His criticisms are worth reading when he speaks 
of a passage as possessing energy or elegance, as being bald 
and mean, marred by tautology or indifferent English. He 
conderons one line as being "a dragging Parapleromatick,'' 
and makes a truly wonderful emendation. ^^ A passage in 

3* Shakespeare Restored, p. 161. 

36 Idem, p. 175. 

^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 190. 



88 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Romeo and Juliet read 

As is the bud bit with an envious Worm 
E're he can spread his sweet leaves to the air 
Or dedicate his beauty to the same. 

Logic or knowledge could find no fault with this passage. 
It is perfectly clear and consistent. Bentley could have 
found little to cavil at. But the poetic sense of Theobald 
made him hesitate at the last line as being prose rather than 
poetry, and the same artistic feeling suggested *'sun'' for 
"same." It is hard to conceive of the great classical critic 
making an emendation that would show such a delicate 
poetic feeling. Perhaps we shall never know whether 
Shakespeare wrote "sun," but the emendation will always 
remain a contribution to things beautiful. We even find 
Theobald escaping where Pope erred. His appreciation 
of poetic license made him reject Pope's conjecture of "siege" 
for "sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, even though there 
seemed to be a violation of reason. ^^ 

As has been noticed on a previous page, after the critical 
doubt Bentley and Theobald use similar expressions in 
introducing their emendations. The tone in these introduc- 
tory phrases — and often the wording itself — is the same, 
ranging all the way from the greatest surety to a doubting 
diffidence, with the former more frequent. Statements 
such as "It must certainly be read thus," "It must be 

^^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 82. We can well imagine how Bentley 
would have attacked this passage: "Or to take arms against a sea of 
Trouble. Thus all the editions I have ever seen, but never will 
they prevail upon me to agree with them. For who would do such 
a thing as arm against the sea? How could one fight with water? 
Surely this is wretched nonsense. It is true that Xerxes ordered 
the sea whipt, but who would believe that the poet was thinking of 
him? Correct, as the poet most certainly wrote, ' a siege of trouble.' 
This figure is often employed by the poets." And then would come 
a long list of quotations in which "siege" was used. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 89 

corrected in spite of all copies/' ''Without doubt it must 
be corrected," as well as more modest assertions, such as ''I 
suspect that," ''I scarcely doubt that," "I dare affirm our 
author wrote thus," are found on nearly every page of the 
Horace and Shakespeare Restored. Although this is a 
trifling correspondence, it is so prevalent as to give a certain 
tone or atmosphere to the English and Latin notes. 

In the actual emendation the two critics both show al- 
most uncanny sagacity. Though Bentley shows in his 
notes more learning and sheer mental power, Theobald's 
emendations give just as clear proof that he was possessed 
of that peculiar indefinable gift necessary to any great 
corrector. Furthermore, Theobald evinces more respect 
for manuscript authority than Bentley (the earlier editions of 
Shakespeare corresponding to the manuscripts of classical 
authors). While the latter calls attention to ''the slightest 
change" or "the change of a single letter" required for an 
emendation, he is not loath to restore with an air of certainty 
where there is little or no trace of the true reading in the 
manuscripts. Theobald also calls attention to the slight 
change in the current text necessary for his emendations, 
but where all traces are lost he puts his emendation 
on the basis of pure conjecture. ^^ It is really remarkable 
that, living in an age when so much license was granted 
the restorer, and being among the very first to correct English 
texts, Theobald should have kept so close to the various 
readings. It is on this ground that he defends himself 
against unjust censure: 

39 "We have not, indeed, so much as the Foot-steps, or Traces, of 
a corrupt Reading here to lead us to an Emendation: nor any Means 
left of restoring what is lost but Conjecture. I shall therefore offer 
only what from the Sense of the Context seems to be required. I am far 
from affirming that I shall give the Poet's very Words, but 'tis probable 
that they were, at least, very near what follows in Substance." Shake- 
speare Restored, p. 108. 



90 LEWIS THEOBALD 

But it is high Time now that I turn my Pen to one promised 
Part of my Task, which is yet in Arrears, viz. an Endeavour to 
restore Sense to Passages, in which, thro' the Corruption of suc- 
cessive Editions, no Sense has hitherto been found: Or to restore, 
to the best of my Power, the Poet's true Text, where I suspect it 
to be mistaken thro' the Error of the Press or the Manuscript. 
The utmost Liberty that I shall take in this attempt, shall generally 
confine itself to the minute Alteration of a single Letter or two : 
An Indulgence which, I hope, I cannot fear being granted me, if 
it retrives Sense to such Places as have either escaped Observation 
or never been disputed or understood by their Editors.''^ 

As regards manuscript assistance, Bentley was far more 
fortunate than Theobald in his apparatus criticus. Many 
are the manuscripts and editions of Horace that figure in 
his notes. Theobald, however, for his remarks on Hamlet ^ 
had to rely on the second folio,^^ the 1637 quarto, a 1703 
quarto, and Hughes' quarto. For part of his work he had 
an opportunity of examining the fourth folio. For the 
rest of the plays he had to content himself with the folios 
just mentioned, the 1600 quarto of Much Ado About Nothing, 
the 1611 quarto of Titus Andronicus, and a 1655 quarto of 
Lear. He also, perhaps, derived some slight assistance from 
later alterations of the plays. 

In the conjectural criticism, where an emendation 
is tested and supported, the process is pretty much the same 
as in the critical doubt. Grammatical, historical, and 
aesthetic tests are applied. Both critics show how the sense 
is restored or improved, or grammar rectified. In case the 
correction has to do with history, the restored word is shown 
to agree with knowledge derived from other sources. Often 
the emended passage is shown to be more poetical or effective 
than the old reading. But the main support of an emen- 

*° Shakespeare Restored, p. 165. 

*^ This, Theobald says, was "in the GeneraUty esteemed the best 
Impression of Shakespeare." Shakespeare Restored, p. 70. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 91 

dation, one emphasized by Bentley both in words and in 
practice, ^^ is a long Ust of passages from various works 
quoted to show a similar or usual use of the word re- 
stored, or to support a stated fact of history, grammar, 
metrics, and the like. Theobald also emphasizes this 
method, and a glance through his remarks on Hamlet will 
reveal the large number of passages quoted. If there are 
not quite so many quotations in the appendix to Shake- 
speare Restored, it is more because of lack of space than of 
inclination. On more than one occasion he calls attention 
to this method : 

As every Author is best expounded and explained in One Place, 
by his own Usage and Manner of Expression in Others ; wherever 
our Poet receives an Alteration in his Text from any of my Correc- 
tions or Conjectures, I have throughout endeavour'd to support 
what I offer by 'parallel Passages, and Authorities from himself: 
which, as it will be my best Justification, where my Attempts 
are seconded with the Concurrence of my Readers; so it will 
be my best Excuse for those Innovations in which I am not so 
happy to have them think with me.*^ 

The majority of Bentley's notes on Horace are concerned 
with various readings, and there are almost as many ''cor- 
rections from various readings" in Theobald's remarks on 
Hamlet as there are conjectures, though we have, in the 
previous discussion, been chiefly considering the latter. 
Yet there is little difference in the process requisite for the 
estabhshment of both. An accepted variant reading is a 
conjecture with manuscript authority, while the rejected 
reading is the corruption. The suspected reading is sub- 
jected to the scrutiny of the critical doubt, and the preferred 

42 See ante, Chap. II, note 30. 

*^ Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. viii. See also p. 128, 
where Theobald says that to expound an author by himself "is the 
surest Means of coming at the Truth of his Text." 



92 LEWIS THEOBALD 

one is subjected to all the tests and supported by all possible 
authority. The process involved is practically the same, and 
appears so in both Latin and English notes. Omitted 
passages stand in the light of various readings, while the 
correcting of ''false printing" and "false pointing" is merely 
a detail of conjectural emendation. 

Theobald's method extends to the formulation of certain 
metrical and grammatical rules followed by Shakespeare, 
together with certain characteristics of his poetic style. 
He notices that the poet often introduces an extra syllable 
into his verses, and he refuses to reduce them to classic regu- 
larity."** His corrections for meter are generally based on 
the absence of a syllable. He proves certain grammatical 
peculiarities, such as the use of nouns and adjectives as 
verbs ,*^ the use of adjectives as nouns ,*^ the frequent change 
of number,*^ and the use of the nominative case in pronouns 
instead of the accusative. He notices Shakespeare's custom 
of repeating a word to give force, and the redoubling of 
pronouns. He reached these conclusions by a most thorough 
and systematic study of the plays, and for proof of them he 
quotes extensively from Shakespeare, where the rule is 
seen in operation. Though this may seem an obvious 
method, it does not appear to have been employed before 
in the study of English texts. Bentley, to be sure, is most 
consistent in the use of such a method when he is proving 
a metrical or grammatical law, and if there was any source 
for Theobald's method, it must be here."*^ 

There are a few other slight similarities between the two 
critics. Theobald follows Bentley's method of correcting 

** Shakespeare Restored, pp. 2, 20, 24. 
« Idem, pp. 8, 11. 
« Idem, p. 37. 
*' Idem, p. 35. 

*' For example, see notes on Horace, Bk. Ill, Ode XVI, v. 31, and 
Bk. Ill, Ode XII, v. 1. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 93 

a passage *'on the run," so to speak; that is, quoting a 
passage in support of an emendation and then correcting 
it, or correcting the passage before presenting it for proof.*' 
He also is hke Bentley in claiming credit for an independent 
emendation later verified by another reading.^ The reason 
Theobald gives for selecting Hamlet as the subject of most 
of his remarks, not because it was the most faulty, but be- 
cause it was the most popular of the plays, is the same as 
Bentley gave for editing Horace. Besides these echoes of 
Bentley, there are a few references to other scholars. The 
motto, taken from Virgil and appearing on the title page, 

. . . Laniatum Corpora toto 
Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeliter Ora, 
Ora, manusque ambo, . . . 

evidently looks back to a note of Markland's Epistola 
Critica}^ In comparing the corrupt text of Shakespeare 
to a sick person, ^2 Theobald was employing a figure used in 
classical scholarship,^' and his characterization of Pope's 
''abhorrence of all innovation" as "downright Supersti- 
tion" ^* had been given to others. ^^ 

This critical treatise contained several discoveries — 
since become commonplace — the most remarkable of which 
was that he who undertakes to edit an author has a duty 
to perform. Theobald claimed that the failure of Pope's 
edition was explained by the fact that the poet declined the 
duty of an editor, a duty that every editor owed Shake- 

*' Shakespeare Restored, pp. Ill, 148. 

'° Cf. Shakespeare Restored, pp. 82, 102, with note on Horace, Bk. 
Ill, Ode XVII, V. 5. 

" See ante, Chap. II, p. 45. 

" Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. 

" See ante, Chap. II, p. 48. 

" Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. iv. 

'* See ante. Chap. II, p. 54. 



94 LEWIS THEOBALD 

speare — that of being a critic on him.^^ This duty he 
further defined as the exertion of every power and faculty 
of the mind to supply the defects of corrupt passages, and 
to give light and restore sense to them. Thus he was un- 
willing to pass by, as he accused Pope of doing, passages 
he did not understand, but earnestly set about clearing up 
the obscurity with what materials he had at hand. His 
conception of what an editor was obligated to do was pro- 
phetic of the modern idea. There are three ways of removing 
textual obscurities: one is by explaining the passage on the 
basis of the current text; another is by the adoption of a 
variant reading, when there is one; and the last lies in emen- 
dation. Now the first two are emphasized; Theobald was 
inclined to emphasize the last two. Yet the substance of 
his idea of an editor's duty remains the same to-day — the 
expenditure of the greatest critical care and diligence toward 
making a text as intelligible as possible. 

Besides, as we have seen, he worked according to a defi- 
nite method, one of which he was perfectly conscious. In 
one of his remarks on Hamlet, he says the other plays of 
Shakespeare can be restored ''with the same method."" 
The secret of this method he states in another place, where 
he claims emendations are more substantial than mere 
guesses when supported by reason or authority.^^ Here 
is the spirit of scholarship that refuses to accept anything 
that cannot be buttressed with proofs and reasons — knowl- 
edge ordered by logic, the basis of all sciences. The term 
''authority" covers a multitude of things, but Theobald 
relied, to a great extent, on parallel passages quoted to up- 

" Stated on p. v of the Introduction and repeated on p. 133 of 
Shakespeare Restored. 

" Shakespeare Restored, p. 60. 
58 Idem, p. 133. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 95 

hold a reading or sustain a statement. ^^ References to 
classical writers of every description show his wide acquain- 
tance with Greek and Latin literature, while his quotations 
from Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Spenser display his familiar- 
ity with them. But the lack of any reference to Elizabethan 
literature in general, with the exception of Spenser, and the 
drama in particular is rather surprising.^ The only Eliza- 
bethan drama referred to is The Humorous Lieutenant of 
Beaumont and Fletcher. This lack of knowledge of the 
literature of Shakespeare's age was a defect, and a serious 
one, in Theobald's method. As we shall see later, it was 
in overcoming this deficiency that Theobald's edition makes 
a pronounced advance over his first critical effort. 

The work is also unique for its time in that it is permeated 
by a sincere desire for truth rather than victory, a desire 
that makes the critic confess and correct a mistake made 
on an earlier page.^^ There is a ring of sincerity in the 
statement, ''Whenever I am mistaken, it will be a Pleasure 
to. me to be corrected, since the Public will at the same Time 
be undeceived." ^^ Though Theobald speaks of the ''Ap- 
plause of the Readers" and implies that he acted on a "View 
of Reputation," ^^ he did not let his desire for glory over- 
come his love for truth. Even if his attempt should fail, 
he hopes that others will be led to read Shakespeare more 
dihgently, so ''that better Critics will make their own Ob- 

^^ Cf. Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. Here Theobald, to give "author- 
ity" to a statement of his, quotes Plutarch, Athenaeus, Diodorus, 
Siculus, ApoUodorus, and Pausanias. He focuses evidence from wide 
sources upon a point under discussion in the same manner as Bentley. 

^° Professor Lounsbury says these extracts are taken from other 
dramatists of Shakespeare's time, but I suspect he was thinking of 
Theobald's edition. See Text of Shakespeare, p. 160. 

" Shakespeare Restored, p. 191. 

82 Idem, p. 194. 

63 Idem, pp. 133, 193. 



96 LEWIS THEOBALD 

servations, with more Strength than I can pretend to." ** 
Nor was Theobald disappointed in the hope that others 
might be influenced to spend more time over the text of 
Shakespeare, as well as over the texts of other English poets. 
He was perfectly aware of the novelty of his work which 
he justly declared to be ''the first Essay of literal Criticism 
upon any Author in the English Tongue." ^^ Yet the very 
novelty of the undertaking made him regard the outcome 
with some trepidation. Knowing of the attacks that had 
been made upon the mighty Bentley and the Royal Society, 
it is no wonder he felt that he ran a risk.^^ Furthermore, 
the consciousness of his own attitude in the past perhaps 
had something to do with his explanation that ''No Vein 
of Pedantry, or Ostentation of useless Criticism invited me 
to this Work." " He was somewhat doubtful of the way 
Pope would receive his book, but was fatuous enough to 
rely upon the generosity of a man whose regard for Shake- 
speare and truth was considerably less than his vanity. 

I must expect some Attacks of Wits, being engag'd in an Under- 
taking of so much Novelty: The Assaults that are merely idle, 
or merely splenatick, I shall have the Resolution to despise: And 
I hope, I need be under no great Concern for Those, which can 
proceed from a generous Antagonist. . . . And whenever I have 
the Luck to be right in any Observation, I flatter myself, Mr. 
Pope himself will be pleas' d, that Shakespeare receives some 
Benefit.68 

^* Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. 

" Idem, p. 193. 

«« Idem, p. 193. 

^^ Idem, p. vi. 

^8 Idem, p. 194. Gompare also the passage on p. 134, where he 
says that he runs a great risk in correcting Pope's emendations, but 
where he is wrong he is willing to be Pope's foil. This brings to mind 
the famous couplet of Garth on the Phalaris controversy; and, in- 
deed, the controversies between Boyle and Bentley and between Pope 
and Theobald were more than superficially similar. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 97 

But while Theobald had some misgivings over his innova- 
tion, there was one man who clearly saw the importance of 
the volume. His friend, Mathew Concanen, communicated 
to The London Journal for September 3, 1726, a letter of 
Theobald containing some emendations, to which the former 
prefixed a significant introduction worthy of being quoted 
in full. 

It is a debt which the World owes to those who have deserved 
well of it, to preserve their reputations as long as the materials 
of which they are formed can be made to last. To this kind of 
reward I think no sort of men better entitled than the Poets; 
whether we consider them as seldom receiving any other, or as 
they really are Benefactors in a very high degree to mankind. 
This is in a great measure confessed by the practice of other Coun- 
tries towards the memory of such as have excelled among them, 
and by the consent of all Nations in their admiration and ap- 
plause of the Antients. We are the only people in Europe who 
have had good Poets among them, and yet suffer their reputation 
to moulder, and their memory as it were to rust, for want of a Uttle 
of that Critical care, which is as truly due to their merit as to 
that of the antient Greek and Roman Writers — You perceive 
what I aim at. It is to observe to you, that some tolerable Com- 
ments upon the Works of our celebrated Poets are not only ex- 
pedient, but necessary. Every Writer is obliged to make himself 
understood of the age in which he lives; but as he cannot answer 
for the changes of manners and language which may happen 
after his death, those who receive pleasure and instruction from 
him are obliged, as well in gratitude to him as in duty to posterity, 
to endeavour to perpetuate his memory, by preserving his mean- 
ing. This is what the French have done by their Marots, Rabelais's, 
and Ronsards ; nay even Boileau, who died within our memory, 
is thus armed against the assaults of Time. The Italians, who 
are not thereto provoked by a changing Language like ours, have 
not a tolerable Writer in their tongue whose Works are not illus- 
trated by some useful Notes; while we, whose manners are so vari- 
able, and whose Language so visibly alters every century, have 



98 LEWIS THEOBALD 

not one Poet (though there are several whom we admire) who has 
met with the good fortune of a kind hand endeavouring to secure 
him against mortahty. Strange humour! Much pains have 
been taken to preserve to us the Picture of Chaucer, while nobody- 
has thought it proper to render that better picture of him, his 
writings, intelhgible to future ages. Butler has had a Monument 
erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey; how much more 
emphatically might it be said to be erected to his memory, if it 
were a Comment upon his excellent Hudibras: which, for want 
of such illustration, grows every day less pleasing to his Readers; 
who lose half his wit and pleasantry, while they are ignorant of 
the facts he alludes to. I own, it grows daily more difficult to per- 
form this duty to old Authors; and therefore the Itahans say, 
that a Comment ought to be made when the Work does not need 
it, for that it will be impossible to make one when it does. I 
have been thrown into these thoughts by a Letter from a Gentle- 
man, who has first in our language given proofs of an abiUty to 
do justice to an excellent Writer. Sorry I am that he is not al- 
lowed to indulge the inclination, which is accompanied by so 
much knowledge and genius to execute it. The Letter (which I 
send you with this) was occasioned by some discourse I had with 
him upon a passage in Shakespeare which, through the error of 
the text, neither he nor I could then discover the meaning of; 
but such is his zeal for the Author, and such is his penetration in 
matters of Learning, that in a day or two he perfectly cleared it 
up. I cannot conclude without observing, that such a Critick 
as this might bring the name of a Commentator into the repute 
which it has lost by the dull and useless pedantry of some Pre- 
tenders to it. Such a Gentleman, and none but such, ought to 
repubhsh an old Writer, since it is in his power to make reprisals 
upon his Author, and to receive as much glory from him as he 
gives to him.^^ 

The significance of Theobald's production is twofold. 
First, he brought to the study of English letters the spirit 
and the method of sound scholarship. He conducted his 

^^ Reprinted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 18d-191. 



SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 99 

investigations with critical care, and supported his con- 
clusions with the most thoroughgoing evidence of which 
the materials of his knowledge were capable. Second, he 
showed by the favor with which his work was received that 
English writers were worthy of the same study given the 
classics. He dignified scholarship in English literature, 
raising it to a level with the traditional objects of research. 
It does not seem to have entered the minds of others that 
the texts of English writers deserved the same minute 
care as the classics, and Theobald himself was not sure of 
the value of his labors ; even his success did not completely 
assure him. Later we find him turning his attention away 
from English to Greek and Latin writers, and seeking to 
bolster up his reputation by corrections on them. Nor 
is this strange. From days immemorial the classics had 
been the source and object of investigation, yet during the 
first quarter of the eighteenth century the researches of 
Bentley had been subjected to the bitterest taunts of the 
wits. If such were the attitude toward Bentley, what 
would it be toward one who brought Bentley's method to 
bear on an English poet? Yet Theobald's effort met with 
wider and more complete favor than Bentley's Dissertation 
on Phalaris. Only the persistent virulence of Pope and the 
misrepresentation of his later admirers succeeded in be- 
littling the critic's work. At the time, Shakespeare Restored 
met with great success, and this, together with the conviac- 
ing nature of Theobald's remarks, influenced others to turn 
their attention to English writers. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD'^ 

Shakespeare Restored met with a substantial success, as 
is attested by the notices and commendations in the periodi- 
cals of that day ; its popularity is also seen in the fact that 
Theobald came to be known as 'Hhe author of Shakespeare 
Restored.'' ^ At the end of that work Theobald declared 
that its success governed his ''prosecuting a Design, that 
savours more of public Spirit than private Interest"; so 
the appearance a few months later of an emendation of 
his shows that he was sufficiently pleased with the im- 
mediate reception his first effort secured to continue in 
this critical field. Henceforth work on Shakespeare became 
his chief interest and delight. Recognition of his capacity 
as a textual critic, based upon his first published emenda- 
tions, is well attested by the number of men who were glad 
to render him assistance. Among these latter was Mathew 
Concanen, a lawyer by profession and literary man by choice, 
who, soon after Theobald's appearance as a Shakespearean 
scholar, praised his ability, and regretted that he had not 
revised the whole text.^ 

When this favorable criticism was written Concanen did 
not know the scholar, but he must have made his acquaint- 
ance soon after, for a correspondence was begun between 
them. He contributed one of Theobald's letters to The 
London Journal, September 3, 1726, together with his ex- 
pressed recognition of the significance of Theobald's work, 

1 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 177, 179. 

2 Mist's Journal, May 7, 1726. 



THE PERIOD OF " THE DUNCIAD" 101 

quoted in the previous chapter.^ He also introduced the 
critic to his circle of literary friends, who later went under 
the title of the ''Concanen Club." Among these were 
Dennis, James Moore-Smythe, and Thomas Cooke. It 
was at a meeting of this group that Theobald first met 
Warburton, who was introduced by Concanen on New 
Year's Day, 1727.^ 

On meeting Warburton Theobald must have immediately 
engaged him on the subject of Shakespeare, ever upper- 
most in the critic's mind, for in a letter written the following 
day to Concanen, Warburton speaks of papers he promised 
to his new acquaintance and of offering to *'Mr. Theobald 
an objection against Shakespeare's acquaintance with the 
Ancients." ^ Nothing came of their meeting until March, 
1729, when a correspondence began between them, which, 
devoted largely to criticism of Shakespeare, continued until 
the summer of 1736. This friendship with Warburton, 
although the divine proved to be absolutely faithless, was 
of considerable assistance to Theobald in rendering him 
sympathy, encouragement, and inspiration to pull through 
the dark years following The Dunciad. 

In December of 1727 Theobald brought forth a drama 
purporting to come from the pen of Shakespeare.^ In his 

3 This letter contained the emendation of "Osprey" for "Asprey" 
in a passage in Coriolanus, which is thoroughly proved and supported 
in the true Bentleian manner, notice being called to Pope's evident 
ignorance of the meaning of the passage. 

* Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 195. 

^ This letter contains criticism of Dryden, Milton, and Addison, 
as well as the famous statement that Pope borrowed for want of genius. 
Akenside called attention to it, as well as Warburton's correspondence 
with the dunces in general, in a note on his An Ode to The Late Thomas 
Edwards, written in 1761, though not printed until 1765. 

® Double Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers. A Play, As it is Acted 
at the Theatre-Royal in Druiy Lane. Written Originally by W. Shake- 
speare; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage by Mr. Theo- 



102 LEWIS THEOBALD 

dedication to George Dodington, he calls Double Falshood 
an orphan play and claims the credit of rescuing this remnant 
of Shakespeare's pen from obscurity. Against those who 
would attribute the work to his own pen, he objects that 
they pay him a greater compliment than he deserves. In 
his preface he says that the success the acted play met with, 
together with the reception it found from those great judges 
to whom he communicated the manuscripts, makes a preface 
unnecessary; so his intention is rather to wipe out a flying 
objection than to prove the play Shakespeare's. Of the 
three manuscripts he possessed, one was sixty years old, 
in the hand-writing of Mr. Downes, the famous old prompter, 
and had been early in the possession of Betterton, who 
designed to publish it. Another he purchased at a good 
price, and the third he received from a noble person who told 
him the tradition that Shakespeare wrote it while in retire- 
ment from the stage, and gave it to a natural daughter. 
To show that chronology was not against the ascription he 
states that Don Quixote, from which the play was taken, 
was published in 1611, while Shakespeare died in 1616. 
He says those do not deserve an answer who think that in 
coloring, diction, and characters, the play is nearer Fletcher; 
so he leaves it with better judges, 'Hho' my Partiality for 
Shakespeare makes me wish that Every Thing which is 
good, or pleasing, in our Tongue, had been owing to his Pen." 
The preface to the second edition differs in a few points 
from the first. Here he gives the date of the first part 
of Don Quixote, upon which only the play is based, as 1605. 
He also says that he had once planned to show the play 
was Shakespeare's by the peculiarity of the language, but 
had finally decided no proof was necessary. Instead of 

bald the Author of Shakespeare Restored. London : Printed by J. 
WattSf at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn-Fields, 
MDCCXXVIII. 



THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD'* 103 

the phrase, '^in our Tongue," in the passage quoted above, 
the second edition has ''in that other great poet" (Fletcher), 
a substitution that leads me to believe Theobald saw signs 
of Fletcher in the play. 

Theobald's growing reputation as a Shakespearean scholar 
carried sufficient weight to cause a certain amount of con- 
currence in the ascription of the play to Shakespeare, though 
some thought it belonged to Fletcher, while others gave 
Theobald the honor. Some ten years later Pope said that 
he never supposed it to be Theobald's, but took it to be 
of the age of Shakespeare.^ This statement is certainly 
contradictory to a note of his in The Dundad, where he 
ridicules Theobald's weak reasons for ascribing the play 
to Shakespeare, registers his belief in the critic's author- 
ship, and makes a number of satirical emendations. Fur- 
thermore, there were two references to the play in The 
Grubstreet Journal, with which Pope may have had some 
connection. The first was a passage in a poem entitled 
''The Modern Poets": 

See Tibbald leaves the lawyer's gainful train 

To wrack with poetry his tortured brain; 

Fir'd, or not fir'd, to write resolves with rage, 

And constant pores o'er Shakespeare's sacred page. 

Then starting cries — I something will be thought: 

I'll write — then — boldly swear 'twas Shakespeare wrote. 

Strange! he in Poetry no forgery fears. 

That knows so well in Law he'd lose his ears.^ 

The other was a bill against the importation or sale of any 
book pretended to be written by a dead author : 

Provided, nothing herein contained, shall be construed to preju- 
dice L. T d. Esq; or the heir of his body, lawfully begotten, 

^ Letter to Aaron Hill, June 9, 1738. Elwin and Courthope, vol. 
10, p. 53. 

8 Grub-Street Journal, No. 98, November 18, 1731. 



104 LEWIS THEOBALD 

in any right or title, which he or they, may have, or pretend to 
have of affixing the name of WiUiam Shakespeare, ahas Shakespear, 
to any book, pamphlet, play, or poem, hereafter to be by him, 
or them, or any other person for him, or them, written, made, or 
devised.^ 

Since its appearance the play has been attributed to several 
authors : Farmer gave it to Shirley, Malone to Massinger, 
and Reed was of the opinion that Theobald wrote it. Gifford, 
however, objects to this last ascription on the ground that 
the scholar had not sufficient ability to write it, and defends 
the genuineness of the text because of the use of one word, 
comparison for caparison}^ In recent years there have been 
several attempts to establish its authorship. One critic 
has attempted to identify it with a play called Cardenna or 
Cardenno, acted in 1613 by the King's men, which is per- 
haps the same as The History of Cardenio, By Mr, Fletcher 
and Shakespeare, entered in the Stationer's Register, 1653, 
for Humphrey Mosley.^^ This theory has been opposed by 
Mr. Schevill, who thinks the play was taken from an eight- 
eenth-century version of Cervantes' story, with Theobald 
the most likely author. ^^ Besides the dates being directly 

» Idem, No. 97, November 11, 1731. 

1° Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 151. It is interesting to 
observe that one of Pope's emendations, mentioned above, was the 
change of comparisons to caparisons. 

1^ Gamaliel Bradford, The History of Cardenio, By Mr. Fletcher 
and Shakespeare, Nation, vol. 88, No. 2283, April 1, 1909; and M. L. N, 
XXV, 51. Mr. Bradford sees signs of Fletcher in the fact that the 
story was taken from Cervantes, in the development of the plot, and 
in the characterization of Violante. He also calls attention to stylistic 
quahties in the latter part of the play (from III, 3, to the end), which 
resemble those of Fletcher — double endings, alliteration, and repeti- 
tion, especially of such Fletcherian words as "extremely" and "now." 
In the first part he claims to detect the presence of a strong mascu- 
line hand, but does not go so far as to ascribe it to Shakespeare. 

^2 Rudolph Schevill, Theobald's Double Falshood, Modern Philology, 
vol. IX, p. 269. 



105 

opposed to Mr. Schevill's theory, which makes necessary 
some unwarrantable hypotheses, the same evidence that 
proves the play based on the novel can prove the novel 
drawn from the play.^^ 

Professor Lounsbury is of the firm opinion that Theobald 
was not the author, since his claims concerning the manu- 
scripts could have been easily disproved, and would have 
been, had they been false. But whatever Theobald's part 
in the work, I am rather confident that he did not himself 
really believe Shakespeare was the author. It is entirely 
probable that he obtained manuscripts bearing Shakespeare's 
name, and attended by a tradition, but a man of Theobald's 
thoroughgoing scholarly nature, who insisted that all con- 
clusions should be supported by proof and authority, would 
not have rested content with the feeble reasons, justly 
satirized by Pope, which were given in the preface. He 
would have continued in the design, he said he once had, of 
proving Shakespeare's authorship by the peculiarity of the 
language, a task he was entirely competent for, and one 
which he would have thoroughly done. Had he beheved 
the work Shakespeare's, he certainly would have made some 
mention of it in his edition, and he would probably have 
drawn on it for illustrative or evidential material in his 
notes. Nowhere does he allude to the play, and even in his 

" In a recent contribution to Modem Philology (XIV, 269) Mr. 
Walter Graham has conclusively proved that the play is based upon 
Skelton's translation of Don Quixote. Besides reinforcing Mr. Brad- 
ford's contention of a duaUty of authorship and bringing forth more 
evidence tending to show that the latter part of the drama belongs 
to Fletcher, Mr. Graham has pointed out the dissimilarity in style 
between Double Falshood and some of Theobald's acknowledged plays. 
He omits, however, what should not be omitted in any discussion of 
Theobald's connection with the drama, namely, the critic's adapta- 
tions of Richard II, 1721, and of The Duchess of Malfi {The Fatal Secret), 
1735. 



106 LEWIS THEOBALD 

correspondence with Warburton, where many of his per- 
sonal affairs find a place, he is without exception silent on 
the matter. As has been stated, he probably felt that 
Fletcher was concerned in the authorship of the play, 
though we have no evidence that he had ever heard of The 
History of Cardenio. The whole affair is the most faint- 
hearted undertaking with which Theobald has favored us. 

On December 5, 1727, Theobald was given a royal li- 
cense, granting him the sole right of printing and publishing 
the play. Its first appearance on the stage was in Decem- 
ber, when it enjoyed a considerable success, running for 
ten nights. In July, 1728, Theobald sold the copyright for 
one hundred guineas ; ^^ the play does not seem to have 
entered his mind again save once. 

In the second edition of Double Falshood, which appeared 
early in 1728, Theobald first gave notice of his design of 
correcting all the plays of Shakespeare : 

I am honored with so many powerful Sollicitations, pressing 
me to the prosecution of an attempt, which I have begun with 
some little success, of restoring Shakespeare from the numerous 
Corruptions of his Text; that I can neither in Gratitude, nor 
good Manners, longer resist them. I therefore think it not amiss 
here to promise that, tho private Property should so far stand in 
the way, as to prevent me from putting out an Edition of Shake- 
speare, yet, some way or other, if I live, the public shall receive 
from my hand his whole Works corrected, with my best Care and 
Ability. 

This notice was followed by a letter, communicated by a 
friend to MisVs Journal, though evidently written for pub- 
lication.^^ In introducing the letter the friend said it was 
but a continuation of the criticisms which Theobald had be- 
gun to give to the public. Only one other criticism had ap- 

^^ Lounsbury, The Text of Shakespeare, p. 147. 

^^ March 16, 1728. Nichols {Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
p. 199) says Concanen was the friend. 



THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 107 

peared/^ and it is possible that Theobald was intending to 
print his corrections of all Shakespeare's plays in periodicals. 

This letter contained three of Theobald's emendations 
and one explanation. In Coriolanus, Act. I, Sc. 4, he changes 
Calvus to Cato^s; in Timon, Act. II, Sc. 1, "And have the 
dates in. Come" to "And have the dates in compt"; 
and in the Tempest, Act IV, Sc. 1, "a third of my own life" 
to "a thread of my own life." In these emendations he 
uses the same method employed in Shakespeare Restored. 
But his explanation of the "Sagitarry" in Troilus and 
Cressida is more significant. He shows that the character 
was taken from The Three Destructions of Troy printed by 
Wynken de Worde in 1503. Previously he had thought 
that in the play Shakespeare had depended chiefly upon 
Homer. ^^ It is merely one evidence of the extent to which 
Theobald was reading the literature to which Shakespeare 
had access. The period between Shakespeare Restored 
and his edition of all the plays is marked by a tremendous 
expansion in his reading of literature which could assist in 
correcting or illustrating the text. As regards this particular 
passage, in one of his letters to Warburton he proves con- 
clusively, by citing a number of details, that Shakespeare 
depended upon this product of Wynken de Worde's press.^* 
The ability and learning shown in these criticisms were 
sufficient to make the editor of the journal to which they were 
contributed say that if they were a sample of the critic's 
work, the world would be pleased with Theobald's promise 
of the whole works corrected by his hand. 

But it was not permitted for things to continue so smoothly 
for Theobald. Pope, feeling very keenly the exposure of 
the defects of his edition, had been nursing his wrath and 

^® See ante, p. 101. 

^^ See preface to his alteration of Richard II. 

^' Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 611. 



108 LEWIS THEOBALD 

preparing his counter stroke in silence. The time had now 
come for his revenge. The first blow fell with the publica- 
tion of the third or so-called ''last" volume of Pope and 
Swift's Miscellanies, March, 1728. Two volumes of prose 
miscellanies had appeared early in the preceding summer, 
in the preface to which Pope said the verses were set apart 
in a volume by themselves, and perhaps a third volume of 
prose would appear. This arrangement was broken into 
by the insertion, in the volume devoted to verse, of a prose 
treatise, ''Martinus Scriblerus HEPI BA0OTS ; or of the Art 
of Sinking in Poetry. Written in the year MDCCXVII." 
It is generally thought now that the treatise was written 
with the set purpose of calling forth attacks upon Pope, so 
that he would seem justified in retaUating with The Dunciad; 
the delay in the publication of the "last" volume of the 
miscellanies is attributed to the desire to have The Dunciad 
ready for pubhcation . That such was the purpose of the Bathos 
I have no doubt, but I am incHned to attribute the delay 
in the publication of the ''last" volume to the fact that the 
treatise itself was not ready. In a letter written to Swift 
sometime in January, 1728, Pope says that he has entirely 
methodized the Bathos and written it all. Furthermore, 
it contains strictures on Double Falshood which was not 
published until 1728. 

The Bathos, which was commonly known as the Profund, 
describes the true genius of the profund, and lays down 
rules whereby a person may sink in poetry. Under its 
various chapters there appear as examples of the profund 
three passages from Double Falshood}^ The majority of 

" In Chapter 7, "Of the profund, when it consists in the thought," 
is placed a passage from Act III, Sc. 1 : 

"Is there a Treachery, like This in Baseness 
Recorded anywhere? It is the deepest: 
None but Itself can be its Parallel." 



THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD " 109 

the selections are drawn from the poems of Sir Richard 
Blackmore and Ambrose Phihps, though Rowe, Waller, 
Addison, and others are represented. Some selections are 
even taken from Pope's own works. All this might be 
considered genuine literary criticism, but no such defense 
can be brought forward for Chapter 6, ''Of the several kinds 
of Genius's in the profund, and the marks and characters 
of each." Here Pope lists the different kinds of writers 
under various animals, adding the initials of living authors. 
Theobald appears under the eels and the swallows.^^ The 
only other authors to receive the honor of a double entry 
were Charles Gildon, William Pulteney, Leonard Welsted, 
and WilHam Broome, but the initials of nearly twenty 
men were given once. This example of literary mud- 
sHnging could have had but one purpose — to provoke the 
infuriated victims to retaHation. 

But this was not the only attack on Theobald made in 
the volume. There appeared in the verse a poem entitled 

Under the caption "Hyperbole or the Impossible" in Chapter 2, the 
selection is made from Act I, Sc. 3: 

"The Obscureness of her Birth 
Cannot echpse the Luster of her Eyes, 
Which make her all One Light." 

In Chapter 12 a Une from the same act and scene is chosen as an ex- 
ample of "The Financial Style, which consists of the most curious 
affected, mincing metaphors, and partakes of the alamode": 

"Wax, render up thy Trust: Be the Contents 
Prosp'rous, or fatal, they are all my Due." 

20 "The Swallows are authors that are eternally skimming and flut- 
tering up and down, but all their agility is employed to catch flies. 
L. T., W. P., Lord H." This same figure is used in Dryden's "An 
Essay of Dramatic Poesy." 

"The Eels are obscure authors, that wrapt themselves up in their 
own mud, but are mighty nimble and pert. L. W., L. T., P. M., 
General C." 



110 LEWIS THEOBALD 

''A Fragment of a Satire," part of which had been pubHshed 
as early as 1723 in a miscellany of Curll's called Cythereia, 
and is the first appearance of Pope's attack on Addison. 
To this satire, however, the author had now added satires 
on other men. After thrusts at Gildon and Dennis, Pope 
turns to Theobald : 

Should some more sober critics come abroad, 

If wrong I smile; if right, I kiss the rod. 

Pains, Reading, Study, are their just pretence 

And all they want is Spirit, Taste, and Sense. 

Commas and Points they set exactly right; 

And 'twere a sin to rob them of their Mite. 

In future Ages how their Fame will spread, 

For routing Triplets and restoring ed. 

Yet ne'er one Sprig of Laurel graced these Ribbalds, 

From sanguine Sew down to piddling T s. 

Who thinks he reads but only scans and spells, 

A Word-catcher that lives on syllables. 

Yet even this Creature may some Notice claim, 

Wrapt round and sanctified with Shakespeare's name; 

Pretty in Amber to observe the forms 

Of Hairs, or Straws, or Dirt, or Grubs, or Worms; 

The Thing, we know, is neither rich nor rare. 

But wonder how the Devil it got there.^^ 

The attack on Theobald follows the lines of the attack 
on the sciences and learning : the triviality and inconse- 

21 As Sewell had been dead some two years, the only apparent reason 
for this attack on his memory is the fact that he was associated with 
Theobald in the preparation of Shakespeare Restored, and was spoken 
highly of in one or two passages in the work. 

Later, when the poem was incorporated in An Epistle to Doctor 
Arbuthnot, lines seven and eight were omitted, "slashing Bentley" 

was substituted for "sanguine Sew ," and in the last line but one 

"Thing" was changed to "Things" and the necessary grammatical 
changes made. In fine, the changes are introduced to make the 
passage throughout applicable to Bentley as well as Theobald. 



Ill 

quence of the work and the lack of the finer possessions of 
taste and good sense. "Pains, Readings, Study," which 
Pope grants Theobald, can hardly be held against any one 
now, but at that time scholarly methods were not held in 
high repute among the wits. This is the first appearance 
of Pope's spelling of Theobald's name, which later became 
so general as to render it probable that some knew of no 
other. Even to-day some curious mistakes arise. The 
sneer embodied in ''A Word-catcher, that lives on 
Syllables" Theobald seems to have resented more than 
any other leveled at him. 

This ''last" volume of miscellanies succeeded in drawing 
forth some attacks contained in verses, letters, and the like 
in the current newspapers. There were a score of these, 
four of which Professor Lounsbury attributes to Pope.^^ 
After the publication of The Dunciad they were collected and 
published with a preface ascribed by Pope to Concanen.^^ 
According to Pope, the contributors were Concanen, Roome, 
Theobald, Dennis, Oldmixon, James Moore-Smythe, and 
Cooke. The first two were not mentioned in the Bathos. 
Five notices Pope attributed to James Moore-Smythe. 
From the large majority of the authors satirized in the 
Profund there was no response. 

The only reply that can be definitely ascribed to Theobald 
was contained in Mist's Journal, April 27. In this letter 
Theobald refrained from all abuse, claiming that he had 

22 Text of Shakespeare, p. 207. 

23 A Compleat Collection of All the Verses, Essays, Letters, and Ad- 
vertisements, which have been occasioned by the Publication of Three 
Volumes of Miscellanies, by Pope and Company. To Which is added 
an exact List of the Lords, Ladies, Gentlemen and others, who have 
been abused in those Volumes. With a large Dedication to the Author 
of the Dunciad, containing some Animadversions upon that Extraordi- 
nary Performance. London; Printed for A. Moore, near St. PauVs 
MDCCXXVIII. 



112 LEWIS THEOBALD 

always treated Pope with deference and respect, yet because 
he had set Shakespeare right, he was subjected to personal 
attacks, which he did not intend to answer. He then pro- 
ceeded to justify, in a most thorough and convincing manner, 
the three passages from Double Falshood by quoting re- 
markably analogous passages from Seneca, Plautus, Terence, 
and Ovid. Nor did he confine himself to the classics, but 
made Romeo and Juliet, A Winter^s Tale, and Hamlet furnish 
precedents for his lines. One verse which struck Pope as 
being extremely ridiculous, and which, slightly changed, 
found a place in The Dunciad,^ 

None but thyself can be thy Parallel. 

he showed to be absolutely paralleled by a line from the 
Hercules Furens of Seneca : 

. . . quaeris Alcidem parem? 
Nemo est nisi ipse. 

Theobald did not content himself, however, with defending 
the passage attacked. Knowing full well that his strong 
forte was Shakespearean criticism, he brought forward as 
proof of his ability, somewhat irrelevantly perhaps, another 
emendation which has stood the test of time.^^ He also gave 

2^ Bk. Ill, V. 272. In a note on this line Pope answers Theobald's 
proof by saying that whether Double Falshood is Theobald's or not, 
he has shown that Shakespeare has written as bad, and that no one 
doubts that in such passages the critic can imitate the dramatist. 

All references to the Dunciad are to Lawton GilUver's Second Edi- 
tion, 1729. 

25 Merchant of Venice, Act III, Sc. 2. 

"You lov'd: I lov'd for intermission. 
No more pertains to me, my lord, than you." 

Theobald changed the lines to, 

"You lov'd; I lov'd: (for intermission, 
No more pertains to me, my lord, than you)." 



THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 113 

notice that he intended to pubHsh his remarks on Shakespeare, 
adding that whatever merit his work on the dramatist 
might have, it would awaken Pope to a greater accuracy 
in his forthcoming second edition of Shakespeare. 

And as my remarks upon the whole works of Shakespeare shall 
closely attend upon the publication of his edition, I'll venture to 
promise without arrogance that I'll give about five hundred more 
fair emendations that shall escape him and all his assistants. 

One production that Pope chose to ascribe to Theobald 
appeared in Misfs Journal, March 30, 1728,^^ the title 
being An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation; 
being a Supplement to the Art of Sinking in Poetry. This 
essay in laying down rules whereby a poet may sink in 
reputation makes use of many phrases used by Pope, but 
so twisted as to reflect on him. It sums up in brief and 
caustic manner some of the current accusations against the 
poet. To sink in reputation let him undertake the trans- 
lation of the Odyssey in his own name and get a great part 
done by assistants. As regards Shakespeare, let him publish 
such authors as he has least studied, and then lend his name 
to promote an exorbitant subscription. The Miscellanies 
are but second-hand stuff, and in the Bathos he wrests con- 
structions for the sake of a sneer. Pope was evidently 
sincere in giving the authorship to his rival. Later he 
speaks of having been much injured by one he contained 
in this article. 2^ Indeed, he had plausible reasons for think- 
ing the work Theobald's. The author corrected a mis- 
translation in the first book of the Odyssey, a book translated 
by Theobald. His opinion of Pope's edition of Shakespeare 

^ In the "Testimonies of Authors," prefixed to The Dunciad, p. 25, 
Pope accepts it as Theobald's, but on the next page he speaks of the 
author as "one whom I take to be Mr. Theobald." In the Appendix, 
p. 187, he speaks of the essay as supposed to be by Mr. Theobald. 

" Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 223. 



114 LEWIS THEOBALD 

tallies closely with that expressed by the critic, the preface 
especially being ridiculed. He strongly resents the passage 
in ''A Fragment of a Satire" referring to Theobald; two 
phrases, ''how the devil it got there" and "wrapt round and 
sanctified with" are turned against Pope. In giving the 
names Pope bestowed on authors he mentions Word-catchers 
Routers of Triplets, Restorers of ed, Things, Creatures, 
Wretches, Ribalds, and Scoundrel.^^ All these were applied 
to Theobald in the '' Fragment." Either the latter wrote 
the essay, or else some one was taking up cudgels for him 
with a vengeance.2^ 

Pope was evidently satisfied with the rather poor results 
of the provocative treatise on the Bathos, for on May 18, 
1728, appeared The Dunciad.^^ Uncertain about the success 
of the work. Pope so worded the title-page as to make it 
appear that the poem was the product of Ireland. Nor 
was he unsuccessful in this purpose, though his caution was 
unnecessary.^^ In "The Publisher to the Reader," really 

28 These appellations, especially Word-catcher, rankled in Theo- 
bald's breast. In a letter to Warburton, March 10, 1730 (Nichols, 
Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 551), he gives a specimen of a pro- 
jected essay on Pope's judgment, wherein he corrects some of Pope's 
mistakes in the first book of the Odyssey, and constantly throws up 
to the poet the epithet "Word-catcher." 

29 "The Reason Mr. Pope struck so home at Mr. Tibbald was 
because there was more than a Supposition of his writing an Essay 
on the Art of Sinking in Reputation; or a Supplement to the Art of Sink- 
ing in Poetry.'' Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Alexander Pope, 
Esq.; By William Ayre, Esq.; London, MDCCXLV. This last is 
ascribed to Curl in Remarks on Esquire Ayer's Memoirs of the Life and 
Writings of Mr. Pope in a Letter to Mr. Edmund Curl. London, 1745. 

2° The Dundad An Heroic Poem in Three Books. Dublin Printed; 
London Reprinted for A. Dodd. 1728. 

31 See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 230. Also see Sawney 
(by Ralph), 1728, where Swift is joined with Pope as author of the 
Dundad; and the preface to Edward Ward's Durgen, where Ward 
conjectures the author is of Hibernian extraction. 



115 

written by Pope, we are told that when a man of the highest 
distinction is injured, there is no one to rise up in his de- 
fense, but the case is reversed when a known scoundrel is 
touched upon. For the last two months the town has been 
full of pamphlets, advertisements, letters, weekly essays, 
and the like against the wit, writing, character, and person 
of Mr. Pope. Yet none of his one hundred thousand ad- 
mirers has come to his defense, except the author of this 
poem. He says it is of no concern how he became possessed 
of the manuscript, and that he shall have gained his end if 
it provoke the author, whom he does not know, to give a 
more perfect edition of the poem. The authors satirized, 
he claims, were made for the poem, and much unjust scandal 
is saved by calling the hero Theobald, which by good luck 
happens to be the name of a real person. 

The poem as it appeared in this edition was nearly one 
hundred lines shorter than in the last edition of 1729. The 
dedication to Swift was entirely left out. There were very 
few notes, mostly of an explanatory character. Theobald's 
name was consistently spelled "Tibbald," but only the 
initial, and sometimes the last letter, was given of the names 
of the other men assailed. Jacob and Eliza appeared in 
full, as did also Brown and Mears, whose only fault was 
publishing Theobald's works.^^ This version was incom- 
plete and was put forth only as a feeler ; Pope saved much 
of his material for the next year, when The Dunciad appeared 
with all its appendages. 

From the various rephes called forth by the poem two 
deductions are obvious : first, that Theobald was made 

32 Pope's note on this line, Bk. Ill, v. 20, in the editions of 1729, 

reads, "Booksellers, Printers for Tibbald, Mrs. Haywood, or any body. 

. . . The Allegory of the souls of the Dull coming forth in the form 

of Books, and being let abroad in vast numbers by Booksellers, is 

suflSciently intelligible." 



116 LEWIS THEOBALD 

the hero of the satire because of his work on Shakespeare ; 
and second, that his was the clearest case against Pope in 
that his criticisms were universally recognized as far 
superior to his adversary's edition. It is remarkable how 
the outraged dunces rushed to their king's assistance. 
Anxious for a weapon to use against Pope, the most for- 
midable one they could find was Theobald's reputation as 
a Shakespearean critic. A few were Theobald's friends and 
these were anxious to protect him; others admired his 
ability as a scholar; but there were still others who only 
saw in him and his work the surest answer to Pope. 

Theobald had abused Dennis most persistently in The 
Censor, but since then had probably made friends with him, 
for he praises the ponderous critic in Shakespeare Restored.^^ 
In the preface to Remarks on Mr. Pope's Rape of the Lock, 
1728, a work Dennis said he prepared in the latter days of 
Queen Anne's reign, but had held back to terrify Pope, the 
author speaks of ''several ingenuous men" abused in The 
Dunciad, 

among whom I am obliged, in Justice, to name Mr. Theobald, 
who by delivering Shakespeare from the Injuries of Time, and 
of lazy, or ignorant and stupid Editors, has obliged all who are 
concern'd for the Reputation of so great a Genius, or for the Honour 
of Great Britain. 

He claims that Pope libeled Theobald for no other reason 
than that he had been surpassed by him, and denounces 
the attack on Theobald's poverty and that of others ''who 
have deserv'd a thousand times better both of the country 
and the Commonwealth of Learning." The following year 
Dennis again stands up for the "hero" in his Remarks upon 
Several Passages in the Prelimmaries to the Dundad, which 

33 Shakespeare Restored, p. 20. Here Theobald says that in his 
opinion "no Man in England better understands Shakespeare" than 
Dennis. 



117 

is addressed to Theobald, deposed from his throne because 
he '^is incapacitated to hold an empire of that unbounded 
Extent, by some unfortunate Qualities, as Learning, Judg- 
ment, Sagacity, and that Modesty which always attends 
Merit." Dennis also speaks of seeing a specimen of his 
translation of Aeschylus which ''would make Pope blush 
for his Homer." 

It is not strange to find Concanen upholding Theobald 
against Pope. He was the first to recognize the critic's 
ability and the importance of his work. After becoming 
acquainted with him, he introduced him to his circle of 
acquaintances and remained to the last his truest friend. 
It was as a friend that he took the scholar's part in the 
dedication to the author of The Dundad of a miscellany 
that appeared soon after the satire,^^ where he said that when 
Theobald began the dispute he laid down a method Pope 
would have done well to follow : not the least indecent re- 
flection was cast upon the poet in the whole work. The only 
crime Theobald committed was in presuming Pope was not 
infallible like his namesake of Rome, and could be mistaken. 
He warned the poet that his satire would cause his thousands 
of admirers to inquire as to what provocations Theobald 
had been guilty of to deserve such usage, in answer to which 

the Truth may and has come out, that Mr. Theobald has taken 
more Pains to understand Shakespeare than Mr. Pope cared to 
do: But sure Mr. Pope must have more Wit in his Anger, than 
to do anything which might revive a Controversy he made so bad 
a figure in. 

Two poetic attacks on Pope that appeared the same year 
as The Dundad were Sawney, An Heroic Poem. Occasioned 
by the Dundad and Durgen, or a Plain Satyr upon a Pompous 
Satyrist. James Ralph, the author of the first, was not 

** See ante, note 22. 



118 LEWIS THEOBALD 

mentioned in The Dunciad of 1728, but was introduced into 
the editions of 1729 because of this poem. Ralph holds 
that on the pubhcation of Shakespeare Restored Pope, Swift, 
and Gay, with the aid of Envy, wrote The Dunciad. Speak- 
ing of these three, he says in his preface, 

I confess myself heartily tir'd in following them so far already, 
and am in such a degree affected with my Subject, that I can scarce 
forbear sinking like them, into the lowest Recesses of Dulness; 
but Shakespeare Restor'd very luckily relieves me, and, in grati- 
tude, I think myseff obUg'd, at once to thank Mr. The d for 

that excellent Critique, and condole with him for its being the 
innocent Occasion of such an execrable Lampoon as the Dunciad. 

The poem itself is full of praise for Theobald's critical work. 
Edward Ward in Durgen is more serious. He attacks 
personal satire, implores Pope to cease prostituting his 
muse to such vile lampoons, and though attacking Pope 
bitterly, praises him at times. In his preface he calls Theo- 
bald a man of learning, probity, and distinguishing merits, 
while in the poem he styles Shakespeare Restored a meritorious 
work that must meet with the approbation of all good 
judges. 

There were other defenses of Theobald this same year. 
One who signed himself W. A. contributed a letter to MisVs 
Journal of June 8, in which he severely censures Pope for 
his reflection on Theobald's poverty and for making him the 
hero of The Dunciad because his revision of Shakespeare was 
so much better than Pope's ; in fact, no flaw could be found 
in it.^^ Thomas Cooke, a translator whom Theobald as- 

35 In a note on The Dunciad, Bk. I, v. 106, Pope definitely ascribed 
this letter to Theobald, but in the Appendix, p. 190, he says it was 

written "by some or other of the Club of Th , D s, M re, 

C n, C ke, who for some time, held constantly Weekly meetings 

for these kind of performances." Relying implicitly on Pope's word 
later scholars have often attributed this letter to Theobald and made 
it the cause of The Dunciad! 



119 

sisted this same year, after speaking of the latter as Shake- 
speare's friend, says the critic's part is not to abuse but to 
convince.^^ A few years later, Giles Jacob in his The Mir- 
rour: or, Letters Satyrical, Panegyrical Serious, and Humor- 
ous, 1733, addressed one of the letters, on the encourage- 
ment given to learned and ingenious men, to Theobald. 

The general attitude of that part of the literary world 
who had escaped the satire and were competent to judge 
Theobald's work was that while Pope was supreme in poetry, 
the other was just as surely the better critic. William 
Buncombe, known, if at all, for his adaptation of Voltaire's 
tragedy Junius Brutus, and entirely removed from the 
quarrel, expresses this feeling in an epigram entitled The 
Judgment of Apollo, on the Controversy between Mr. Pope 
and Mr. Theobald, 1729 : 

"In Pope's melodious Verse the Graces smile; 
In Theobald is display' d sagacious Toil; 
The Cri tick's Ivy crowns his subtle brow. 
While in Pope's Numbers, Wit and Music flow. 

These Bards, to Fortune will'd, were mortal Foes, 
And all Parnassus in their Quarrel rose: 
This the dire Cause of their contending Rage, 
Who best could blanch dark Shakespear's blotted Page. 
Apollo heard — and judg'd each Party's Plea, 
And thus pronounced th' irrevocable Decree; 
Theobald, 'tis thine to share what Shakespeare writ, 
But Pope shall reign supreme in Poesy and Wit."^^ 

It is well to note that an unconcerned observer attributed 
the quarrel to Shakespeare Restored. 

36 The Battle of the Poets, revised edition, 1728, p. 32. 

^ This was printed in A New Miscellany, London, printed for A. 
Moore, 1730. It is now to be found in John Nichols, A Select Collection 
of Poems, vol, 6, p. 7. See also Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. BUss, 
1869, vol. 3, p. 167. 



120 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Theobald did not reply to the attack on him, but in a 
letter to Mist's Journal, June 22, took occasion to com- 
ment on The Dundad. In a poetical war of this kind he 
held that attacks should only be made on the faults in 
poetry, and that none should be satirized except those who 
failed as poets. When a writer drew private character into 
the quarrel and satirized men whose activities lay outside 
the field of literature, he became a common enemy to man- 
kind and should consider himself lucky if he was not hunted 
down as a beast of prey. Here Theobald is defending the 
other ''dunces" rather than himself, but he does defend 
himself against one unjust attack. In one passage of the 
satire Pope, knowing that Theobald had contributed a few 
letters to Misfs Journal, a Tory newspaper, represents 
him as leaving literary pursuits and taking up party 
writing on the side of the Tories. ^^ This representation 
Theobald characterized, indirectly, as a malevolent lie of 
an angry wit, which if imputed to inspiration made him 
content with a little sober sense, although bright genius 
deemed it dullness. He claimed, and justly, that his com- 
munications to this journal were not concerned with politics 

38 Bk. I, 11., 189-196 (lines 179-186 in editions of 1728), 
"But when can I my Flaccus cast aside. 
Take up th' Attorney's (once my better) Guide? 
Or rob the Roman geese of all their glories, 
And save the state by cackling to the Tories? 
Yes, to my country I my pen consign, 
Yes, from this moment, mighty Mist! am thine." 
In a note on this passage, in the editions of 1729, Pope farther 
strengthens his accusations by stating that Theobald had a part in 
Mist's famous Tory paper. 

Professor Lounsbury, in The Text of Shakespeare, p. 312, thinks 
the reference to Flaccus may be an allusion to Theobald's intended 
translation of the poet. I think Horace is used merely as a symbol 
of interest in literature, he being the model and inspiration of this 
period. 



THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 121 

but only with learning or entertainment ; that he had no 
inclination to meddle in politics, since his pursuits were of 
an entirely different nature ; and that such an accusation 
would hinder his obtaining subscriptions among the nobility, 
since he could boast but a slender reputation in literature. 
He turned the charge of cackHng to the Tories against 
Pope, who, he said, was shrewdly abused or else made a 
practice of cackling to more than one party. 

With the above letter Theobold sent his proposals for 
publishing critical and explanatory remarks upon Shake- 
speare in three octavo volumes at the price of one guinea. ^^ 
He claimed that all the corruptions of former editions would 
be removed, over a thousand emendations introduced, the 
pointing of some passages rectified so as to make the meaning 
intelligible, and all obsolete words and difficult places ex- 
plained. Furthermore, the work was then ready for the 
press and would be issued to subscribers on the first day of 
December. He declared that he would not reply to Pope^s 
scurrilities, but would treat him with deference. Theobald 
must have met with some success with his subscriptions, for 
in a letter to Sir Hans Sloane at the beginning of the follow- 
ing August he says that in Sloane 's profession he has been 
favored by Dr. Friend, Dr. Mead, and Dr. Pellet.*^ 

His plans for the publication of the remarks were broken 
into by the appearance of Pope's second edition of Shake- 
speare in November of this year. Theobald's emendations 
had met with such a wide acceptation that Pope felt com- 
pelled to introduce some of them into the text. This he 
did with poor grace, failing to acknowledge some and caviling 
at others. ^^ At the end of the eighth volume he made a 

^ I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, 
p. 311, for the content of these proposals. 

*° See Appendix, p. 259. 

^1 One investigator, ignorant of Shakespeare Restored, comes to the 
conclusion that Theobald based his edition on Pope's second edition. 



122 LEWIS THEOBALD 

general acknowledgment of the aid he had received from 
Theobald, estimating it at twenty-five words introduced 
into the text, and added several pages of his opponent's 
corrections, on the ground that if thought trivial or wrong, 
they could at worst spoil only half a sheet that happened 
to be vacant. He also brought the charge against Theobald 
that although he publicly advertised for the assistance of 
all lovers of Shakespeare, while his edition was preparing 
for the press, yet this critic would not communicate 
his notes. He ended with a slur at Theobald's ability to 
correct errors of the press. 

The latter was not slow to reply to this misrepresentation. 
In a letter to the Daily Journal, November 26, 1728, he 
called to mind the assurance he gave in Mist's Journal 
that he would be able to give over five hundred emenda- 
tions that Pope and all his assistants would miss.'^^ At the 
time his friends thought this promise rash, yet Pope had been 
so generous, he could more than fulfill it. He claimed that 
instead of Pope's accepting twenty-five of his readings, he 
had really adopted about one hundred. '^^ After stating that 
he had declared over and over again that no provocation 
would lead him to lose his temper and force him to reply 
with scurrility, he proceeded to name, negatively, five 
qualities of an editor of Shakespeare : industry in collating, 
knowledge of history, knowledge of modern tongues, judg- 
ment in digesting text, and judgment in restoring it. Pope's 
deficiency in all these made him absolutely unequal to the 
task of editing. Theobald was not content with stating 

The evidence cited are those readings that did not appear in Pope's 
first edition, but which appeared in his second and also in Theobald's. 
Unfortunately these are those taken by Pope from Shakespeare Restored. 
See Mod. Phil. IV, 501. 

^ I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, 
pp. 316-321, for the contents of this letter. 

*3 Professor Lounsbury shows the true number to be fifty-one. 



123 

this deficiency ; he proved it by citing examples where Pope 
had failed in each of the stated qualities. As regards Pope's 
complaint of his not communicating his notes, he said he 
considered it rash to bestow the labor of twelve years' study 
upon a bookseller to whom he owed no obligations, or an 
editor who was likely to prove thankless. He then added 
a bold assertion : 

I'll venture to tell Mr. Pope that I have made about two thousand 
emendations on Beaumont and Fletcher; and if he should take it 
in his head to promise us a correct edition of these poets, and re- 
quire all assistances by his royal proclamation, I verily believe I 
shall be such a rebel as to take no notice of his mandate. 

In this letter he pointed out the Historica Danica of 
Saxo Grammaticus as the source of Hamlet, and stated that 
he had just lately had access to the first folio. By it he had 
collated the shortest play of Shakespeare, and found over 
forty material variant readings which Pope had not noticed. 
As regards his own remarks on Shakespeare, he claimed that 
the necessity of reading the eight volumes of this edition 
made him postpone pubUcation until the following January. 
To assure his subscribers he offered his manuscript for in- 
spection at his house by any one desiring to see it. 

The emendations contributed at various times to periodi- 
cals, as well as his repeated assertions regarding the progress 
of his Remarks, show that Theobald had spent the two years 
since Shakespeare Restored in close study of the dramatist. 
Yet in 1728 he found time for two other undertakings. One 
was an edition of Wycherly's posthumous works ; *^ the 
other was in the form of notes contributed to Cooke's trans- 

^* Posthumous Works in Prose and Verse, By William Wycherly, 1728. 
The reputation as an editor Theobald gained from Shakespeare Re- 
stored was responsible for Captain Shrimpton placing Wycherly's 
papers in his hands. For Pope's false and malicious characterization 
of this performance see Elwin and Courthope, vol. 5, p. 182. 



124 LEWIS THEOBALD 

lation of Hesiod. This last represents Theobald's first 
attempt at textual criticism in the classics. It also shows 
the regard his friends had for his scholarship not only in 
English but also in Latin and Greek. Even his enemies 
admitted his scholarship."^^ Pope objected to him because 
he was a scholar. Scholarship and scientific investigation, 
from the time of the controversy between the ancients and 
moderns until after Pope's death, were looked upon almost 
as crimes by the Wits. The Phalaris controversy, the 
Scriblerus conspiracy, the Shakespearean quarrel, and the 
fourth book of The Dunciad are only notable battles in a 
continual war. 

In a postscript to the translation Cooke says, 

I cannot take my leave of this work without expressing my grati- 
tude to Mr. Theobald for his kind assistance in it. Much may 
with Justice be said to the advantage of that gentleman, but his 
own writings will be testimonys of his abilitys, when perhaps, this 
profession of my friendship for him, and of my zeal for his merit, 
shall be forgot. 

To this he added that as a matter of justice he had been 
careful to distinguish all remarks of his friends from his own. 
Theobald's contribution comprised two complete notes and 
four parts of notes. These last consist of collections of 
passages illustrative of some remark of Cooke, and are in- 
troduced by ''The rest of the note by Mr. Theobald." ''^ 
They are insignificant except as showing Theobald's wide 
acquaintance with the classics. 

Of his two whole notes, one corrects the pointing of a 
passage in the original, and gives what Theobald considered 

^^ See " Fragment of a Satire. " 

*^ In a note on The Dunciad (Bk. 1, 1. 168) Pope speaks of these notes 
as having been carefully owned by Theobald. The latter had nothing 
to do with the owning: Cooke, like Theobald and unhke Pope, was 
scrupulous in giving credit for all assistance. 



125 

a new explanation of it. The pointing in modern editions 
is practically the same as his, and while there is still dispute 
regarding the meaning of the passage, some of the editors 
of Hesiod hold Theobald's view^"^ Theobald discusses and 
defends his pointing in true Bentleian manner, supporting 
whatever he says with numerous quotations. The other 
note suggests an emendation, the first the Shakespearean 
critic made in the classics and put forward as "a private 
suspicion." ^^ There is undoubtedly much obscurity in 
the passage, and Theobald defends his beliefs convincingly. 
Modern editions escape the difficulty by judging the lines 
spurious because of the presence of some non-epic forms. 
These notes, while by no means wonderful, are entirely 
creditable to Theobald ; any classical critic could own them 
without a blush. 

Early in the next year Theobald began his correspondence 
with Warburton. The exchange of letters was very frequent 
up to the end of 1731, and continued with diminishing fre- 
quency until the spring of 1736, when it was broken off 
under circumstances hardly creditable to Warburton. In 
these letters Theobald and his friend exchanged their remarks 
and conjectures on Shakespeare and gave their opinions 
of them. In a letter dated March 18, 1729, Theobald 
speaks of having received the second paper of criticisms 
from the divine, and mentions having promised to write 
him troublesome inquiries.^^ From this it could be in- 
ferred that Warburton had as great a part as Theobald in 

*^ See Works and Days (Paley's edition of Hesiod, 1883), 1. 145. 
In a note discussing the passage, Paley says it is difficult to determine 
the meaning, and gives an explanation of the German editor, Goettling, 
which is the same as Theobald's. 

48 ^Torks and Days (Paley's edition), 1. 261 : Sfjfxos aTa0a\Las. Theobald 
would change drj/xos to ttjijlos. See Paley's note on this and the fol- 
lowing lines. 

^3 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 204. 



126 LEWIS THEOBALD 

establishing the correspondence, an inference that has some 
bearing on later developments. 

Hardly had this correspondence been begun when The 
Dunciad again loomed up on the horizon. In the letter 
mentioned above Theobald writes, 

You will hear, I doubt not, by our friend Concanen, that the Par- 
nassian war is like to break out fiercely again. The Dunciad is 
pompously re-printed in quarto, and the publication of it every 
day expected. 

The next month The Dunciad Variorum made its appear- 
ance.^^ Some knowledge of its contents may be gained 
from the description given in the advertisement below. 
Never had an English work been issued into the world with 
all the elaborate paraphernalia common to the much satirized 
editions of the classics. Indeed, Pope seems to be intending 
a satiric thrust at them ; the fact that he first planned the 
notes to be in Latin gives evidence of some such intent. ^^ 

60 "This day is published, in a beautiful Letter in 4to, a complete 
and correct Edition of the Dunciad: with the Prolegomena, Disserta- 
tions and Arguments of Martinus Scriblerus, Testimonia Scriptorum, 
Notes Variorum, Index Autorum, Appendix of some curious Pieces, 
Virgil Restored, or a Specimen for a new Edition of that Poet, a Parallel 
of Mr. Dryden and Mr. Pope, etc.; wherein the Errors of all the 
former Editions are corrected, the Omissions supplied, the Names 
rectified, and the Reasons for their insertions given; the History of 
Authors related, and the Anonymous detected; the obscure Passages 
illustrated, and the Imitations and Allusions to ancient and modern 
Poets collected; with a Letter to the Publisher, by W. C, Esq. Printed 
for Lawton GilUver, against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-Street." 
— London Evening Post, April 12, 1729. Quoted in Nichols, Illus- 
trations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 220. 

" See note on Bk. II, 1. 134. As stated before all references are 
to the second edition, octavo, of Lawton GUHver. As regards Theobald 
the changes introduced, from the first appearance of the variorum 
edition to this edition, are inconsequential. This edition was regarded 
by Pope as the standard. (Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 255.) 



127 

But the real purpose of all this heterogeneous matter was 
to justify The Dunciad and continue the satire on its victims. 
Since the first publication of the poem, those attacked had 
been spurred to unusual activity in their replies, which 
were anything but complimentary to the poet. These 
opinions of him he listed in such a way in the "Testimonies 
of Authors" that to the casual reader, without thought of 
chronology, they would appear as sufficient cause for the 
satire. For the same purpose, doubtless, he listed in 
the appendix those attacks on him that appeared after 
as well as before the satire. Even in the notes to the poem, 
he quotes, as tacit reasons for the inclusion of some authors 
in the satire, works they had written after its first appear- 
ance. In drawing the parallel between the treatment 
accorded himself and Dryden, he quotes many of these 
subsequent criticisms, and in the ''Testimonies" he con- 
trasts the opinions of himself given before and after The 
Dunciad in such a manner as to make their authors ap- 
pear ridiculous. In short, he made capital of everything 
his victims wrote in reply to the first edition of the poem. 

The notes consist largely of the material he gathered con- 
cerning his opponents while composing the poem, as well 
as material drawn from works published after its appearance, 
but it is often given in a distorted and false form. It is 
well to notice a few of these misrepresentations of Theobald. 
In the single note giving his life there are no less than five.^^ 
He speaks of Theobald praising his own productions in anony- 
mous letters to Mist's Journal, for which statement there 
is no foundation. He makes Theobald the author of a 
communication to the same journal, June 8, 1728, which 

For discussions of the various editions of 1728 and 1729 see Lounsl)ury, 
Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. 12 and 13, and Notes and Queries, 1854, 
Vol. 2, pp. 69, 108, 129, 148, 238, 277. 
62 Bk. I, 1. 106. 



128 LEWIS THEOBALD 

claimed there was no flaw in Shakespeare Restored; but the 
satirist has nothing upon which to base his assertion. He re- 
peats the accusation made at the end of his second edition 
of Shakespeare that Theobald concealed his design on the 
dramatist until after Pope's edition. He adds, however, that 
satisfaction had been promised to those who would assist 
him. To make matters worse, according to his account, 
Theobald at that time was soliciting favors from him. 
Lastly, he insinuates that Theobald had a part in the cry 
that Pope had joined with the bookseller to raise an ex- 
travagant subscription. We have seen how Theobald 
answered the charge about concealing his design, yet Pope 
quotes this same letter as admitting the indictment. ^^ We 
shall see later how completely the critic demolished the 
accusation of ingratitude. As for the last charge, the only 
basis Pope had was the Essay on the Art of Sinking in Repu- 
tation, concerning the authorship of which he himself was 
not certain. ^^ There are other misstatements scattered 
through the work. In one place the author says that 
Theobald published once a week or fortnight some poor 
conjecture in Mist's Journal, when Theobald's contribu- 
tions of that nature before The Dunciad number only two.^^ 
And there are the two lies we have noticed above — his 
carefully owning his notes to Cooke's Hesiod and his cackling 
to the Tories. 

Yet with all this elaborate commentary the very book 
that was in a large way responsible for the poem was men- 
tioned but once.^® It was not even included in the list of 

^^ There is a passage in Shakespeare Restored (see supra, p. 132) 
that might be interpreted as suggesting that Pope joined with the 
bookseller in raising a subscription. 

" See ante, p. 113. 

" Note on Bk. I, 1. 164. 

^ "What is still in memory is a piece now almost two years old; 
t had the title of Shakespeare Restored^ Note on 1. 106, Bk. I. 



THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 129 

productions written against Pope, which was inserted in the 
''Appendix." Professor Lounsbury notes that the word 
"Book" which began the poem in the first edition of 1728 
was speedily changed to the plural." In the poem proper 
references to the work are conspicuous by their absence. 
The following passage contains the only allusion. 

*' There, thy good Scholiasts with unweary'd pains 
Make Horace flat, and humble Maro's strains; 
Here studious I unlucky moderns save. 
Nor sleeps one error in its father's grave. 
Old puns restore, lost blunders nicely seek, 
And crucify poor Shakespeare once a week. 
For thee I dim these eyes, and stuff this head, 
With all such reading as was never read; 
For thee supplying, in the worst of days. 
Notes to dull books, and prologues to dull plays; 
For thee explain a thing till all men doubt it. 
And write about it. Goddess, and about it; 
So spins the Silk-worm small its slender store, 
And labours, 'till it clouds itseK all o'er."^ 

In the notes the allusions are more numerous but still in- 
frequent. They are generally to some phrase or sentiment 
expressed in Shakespeare Restored, but no hint is given in 
the note as to the source of the allusion. ^^ 

Most of the satire in the poem hinges on Theobald's other 

" Text of Shakespeare, p. 290. 

68 Bk. I, 11. 159-172. The allusion in the second line is to Bentley's 
Horace. Judging from the way Pope continued to couple these two 
critics, I would conjecture that he was aware of the similarity of their 
methods. 

6^ Bk. Ill, 1. 272. Anadyplosis {Shakespeare Restored, p. 13); 
Bk. n, 1. 175, marginal corrections (p. 11); Bk. I, 1. 162, Shakespeare 
guilty of anachronisms (p. 134); Bk. I, 1. 1, spelling of Shakespeare's 
name (p. 193); Bk. Ill, 11. 28 and 272 ridicule Theobald's method by 
mock emendations. 



130 LEWIS THEOBALD 

works. The satirist is especially severe on pantomimes 
in general and Theobald's in particular, mentioning by 
name three or four of his most popular. Of his translations, 
the Phaedo, Ajax, and Aeschylus are honored, though the 
second Theobald probably did not write, and the last he 
never published. His dramas are represented by The 
Persian Princess, The Perfidious Brother, and a line from 
Double Falshood. The Cave of Poverty is the only one of 
his poems to find a place in the satire. 

Then there is the general accusation of dullness and stupid- 
ity, besides slanders in the notes about his party writings and 
ingratitude. His poverty was more than hinted at, and it 
was on that ground that the opponents of Pope took the 
satirist most to task.^^ In the ''Letter to the Publisher,'* 
signed by William Cleland though written by Pope, the poet 
tries to excuse himself on the ground that the poverty of 
the dunces was the result of their being outside of their 
proper field of activity, and that he was performing a service 
by forcing them to leave off their attempts. On this basis, 
Theobald, when he attempted Shakespeare, was not follow- 
ing his natural bent. 

Theobald's method and verbal criticism in general are 
subjected to the lash of the poet's scorn. Mock emendations 
of Virgil are scattered through the notes and gathered to- 
gether in the appendix under the title of Virgil Restored. 
These, written mainly by Arbuthnot, were taken from a 
production of the Scriblerus Club, which was originally 

^° "She ey'd the Bard, where supperless he sate." Bk. I, 1. 109. 
In raking over Theobald's past, Pope has perused his Censor, as is 
shown by a quotation from it about Dennis. (Note on Bk. I, 1. 104.) 
Is it possible that the above line was suggested by a passage in No. 
38, January 17, 1717? "I am so far of Opinion that our Common 
Dreams proceed from Repletion and Indigestion, that, to prevent this 
fantastic Disturbance of my slumbers, I have for some Years accus- 
tom'd myself to go supperless to Bed." 



THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 131 

directed against Bentley.^^ Pope also gives burlesque 
corrections of Double Falshood to mock Theobald's emenda- 
tions on Shakespeare,^^ and ridicules the out-of-the-way 
reading with which the critic proved his assertions. Caxton's 
''Sagittary" seems to have irritated him very much; the 
specimen of the publisher in the appendix is quoted merely 
to give people a sample of the kind of reading in which 
Theobald indulged. 

As regards the purpose of The Dunciad even that ardent 
admirer of Pope, Johnson, was skeptical : 

That the design was moral, whatever the author might tell his 
readers or himself, I am not convinced. The first motive was the 
desire of revenging the contempt with which Theobald had treated 
his Shakespeare, and regaining the honour which he had lost by 
crushing his opponent. 

Revenge was the poet's motive, no matter what he might 
say about being moved by public spirit in killing off bad 
writers. Of this motive the variorum edition itself convicts 
him. Why such care in seeking out and publishing the 
titles of all productions written against him, except to justify 
him in hitting back? In ''A Letter to the Publisher" it is 
frankly stated that the satire is a reply to attacks, and the 
author himself says that he promised to remove from The 
Dunciad any who could give him assurance ''of having never 
writ scurrillously against him." ^^ In Pope's mind a bad 
writer must have been one who wrote against him. The 
moral idea was an afterthought, for which his rising reputa- 
tion for virtue secured wide credence.^^ 

Pope never openly admitted that Theobald was made 
hero of The Dunciad in revenge for Shakespeare Restored. 

" See ante, Chap. II, p. 57. 

«2 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 272. 

«3 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 146. 

^ See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 283 ff. 



132 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Indeed, he tried to hide the real reason under a number of 
j&ctitious ones. In the preface to the first edition he face- 
tiously remarked that he gave his hero the name Theobald, 
which just happened to be that of a real person. In the 
edition of 1729 he gave a variety of reasons. First, he had 
to have for his hero a man who was a party-writer, dull poet, 
and wild critic; he found Theobald to be such.^^ Later 
the unfortunate man is the hero because there was no better 
to be had.^^ But that which Pope characterized as the real 
reason is the charges contained in the note giving Theobald's 
life, charges that are practically baseless.^^ 

Pope had some grounds for feeling incensed at his adver- 
sary. A book whose title-page proclaimed it to be *'A 
Specimen of the many Errors, as well committed, as un- 
amended by Mr. Pope" could hardly find favor in his eyes. 
And in the body of the work there are passages such as the 
following that would have disturbed a far less sensitive 
man than he: 

There are many Passages of such intolerable Carelessness inter- 
spersed thro' all the six Volumes, that were not a few of Mr. Pope's 
Notes scatter'd here and there too, I should be induced to believe 
that the Words of the First Volume, . . . COLLATED 
and CORRECTED by the former EDITIONS, By 
Mr. POPE, . . . were plac'd there by the Bookseller to en- 
hance the Credit of his Edition; but that he had play'd false with 
his Editor, and never sent the Sheets to revise. And, surely, 
this must have been the case sometimes: For no Body shall per- 
suade me that Mr. Pope could be awake, and with his Eyes open, 
and revising a Book which was to be publish'd under his Name, 
yet let an Error, like the following, escape his Observation and 
Correction.68 

^^ "Martinus Scriblerus of the Poem," p. 42. 

6« Note on Bk. I, 1. 102. 

«7 See ante, p. 127. 

«8 Shakespeare Restored, p. 75. See also p. 97. 



133 

Theobald proved his charges, but justice could not take away 
the sting. He felt no animosity toward the poet, for in 
his introduction he praises him and his works extravagantly, 
as he had done in The Censor. Having lived in obscure 
mediocrity all his Ufe he suddenly found himself able to 
prove publicly his superiority to the most popular poet of 
his time, and overwhelmed with his success, he thought to 
magnify the virtues of his own work by emphasizing the 
failures of Pope. 

It is this variorum edition of The Dunciad that was largely 
responsible for the character of Theobald that has come 
down to recent times. Had the poem remained as it first 
appeared, it would have been reUshed with much gusto, 
but the picture of Theobald would have been accepted as 
a creation of the imagination, a license granted to satiric 
genius, a brilliant caricature. Pope's readers would have 
been willing to agree with him when he satirically says in 
his preface that he had to have a name for his hero, and select- 
ing Theobald found it to be the name of a real person. But 
when he sought to impress upon people the reality of the 
picture, and, turning biographer, gave by means of Hes and 
half-lies a biography that would suit the hero of his poem, 
the real Theobald was lost in the dunce and the one Pope 
created took his place. Well might the author when he 
changed heroes, bid the phantom Theobald to vanish and 
wholly disappear, for phantom he was of Pope's own 
making, having no existence in flesh and blood. 

Furthermore, this edition served as a source of much of 
the material used by later biographers of Pope and the men 
he satirized.^^ Rather than go back to original sources, they 
accepted the mass of incorrect quotations and statements 
found in the same volume with the satire. In this way 

®5 For example see the account of Theobald given in Theophilus 
Gibber's Lives of the Poets, 1753. 



134 LEWIS THEOBALD 

they spread broadcast Pope's unjust characterization of the 
critic, giving as historic fact what was half the invention of 
the poet's mahce. In short, they accepted as truth Pope's 
own account of The Dunciad and the dunces. The effect 
produced by this procedure, together with the slanders 
propagated by Warburton and supported by Johnson, was 
to give such a permanent character to Pope's charges as to 
make them pass current even to-day. 

Theobald did not long remain silent. In a letter to The 
Daily Journal,''^ written by him for publication though 
communicated by another, he says he will be silent under 
the slander of Pope's wit, but not of his malice. As for the 
charge of ingratitude that he was soliciting favors at the 
same time he was refusing to help the poet with his edition, 
he declares that he asked Pope to assist him with a few 
tickets for a benefit, and a month later received a reply 
stating that Pope had been out of town until it was too 
late. This encouraged him sometime later to ask the poet 
to recommend his design of translating Aeschylus, to which 
request Pope answered he would do what he could ; yet 
from that time to the publication of Shakespeare Restored 
there had come no line from him, nor intimation of one sub- 
scriber by his interest. He excused himself for troubhng 
the public with his defense, but as his sUght merit was easily 
shocked, this was the only way he had of appealing to those 
of the nobility whom he had not the honor of approaching 
for their favor. 

Theobald did not stop here. He proceeded to carry the 
war into his opponent's territory. Knowing wherein his 
strength lay, he again calmly pointed out errors in Pope's 
edition of Shakespeare, duly numbered and arranged 
in order. Against Pope's wrong explanations of "reechy," 

^" April 17, 1729. Printed in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature^ 
vol. 2, p. 220. 



THE PERIOD OF '*THE DUNCIAD " 135 

*'germins/' and *' element," '^he gives the correct definition. 
Then he gives several emendations, concerning the majority 
of which there is now little doubt.^^ This manner of answer- 
ing his opponent's attack was exceeding distasteful to the 
latter, for the public were ever reminded of the deficiencies 
of his edition. Here lay the cause of his grossly inaccurate 
accusation of Theobald's having published conjectures 
weekly or fortnightly, a charge that has operated against 
the scholar up to the present time. 

Pope at first did not find many to take up his side of the 
quarrel. '^^ But in 1729 Savage came under his dominion 
and worked most assiduously as his tool and informer.'^* 
The first result of his labors was ''An Author to Let," which 
is in the form of a proposal from Iscariot Hackney (Roome) 
to the members of the "Society of the Bathos." In its 
heaps of scandal and slander the author can find no grounds 
to attack Theobald but that of word-catching. Savage 
speaks of having found the ''dunces" at Ship Tavern, 
Charing Cross, bellowing against the indecencies of The 
Dunciad. Among these he includes Mrs. Haywood, James 
Moore-Smythe, Theobald, Welsted, Cooke, Bezaleel Morris, 
Concanen, and Roome, a group of writers who later were 

71 Much Ado, Act. Ill, Sc. 5, King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 2; Henry VIII, 

Act. I, Sc. 1. 

'2 King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 6, "Courtesy" for "curiosity" (Pope, 

"nicety"). 

Measure for Measure, Act. Ill, Sc. 4. "eat, array" for "eat away." 
Love's Labor's Lost, Act. Ill, Sc. 3, "Senior-Junior" for "Signior 

Junio." 

Idem, Act. IV, Sc. 3, "imitari" for "imitary." 

Titus Andronicus, Act. Ill, Sc. 3, "Cask" for "Castle." 

Twelfth Night, Act. I, Sc. 3, "Curl by nature" for "Cool my nature." 

'3 Thomas Hearne says Pope was much blamed for his barbarous 

treatment of Theobald. Reliquiae Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. 
'•* We find Savage's name, as well as that of Mallet, in the list of 

subscribers prefixed to Cooke's Hesiod. 



136 LEWIS THEOBALD 

called the Concanen Club. In the appendix to The Dundad, 
Pope speaks of a club composed of Theobald, Dennis, Moore, 
Concanen, Cooke, who held weekly meetings to write against 
him. There is little truth in the statement. There was 
undoubtedly a literary group, to whom Concanen had in- 
troduced Theobald and Warburton in the latter half of the 
year 1726. Later Theobald contributed assistance to the 
literary endeavors of some of the members.^^ This group 
was largely represented in The Dunciad; thus there is little 
doubt that the satire and its author made up much of its 
conversation, and caused them to be joined together more 
closely for a common cause. Later Theobald speaks of a 
poem of Welsted as '^our ware." ^^ They did not hold these 
meetings, however, to abuse Pope, for they had held them 
before, yet the poet must have been the center of interest 
with them after The Dunciad. 

The title-page of Savage's pamphlet reads "Number 1. 
To be continued." For some reason, however, the project 
was dropped. It may be that the death of Roome, who is 
represented as the author, near the close of the year caused 
a change in plan. The next year The Grub-street Journal 
took up the work along the same lines. This was a weekly 
periodical which ran from the beginning of 1730 to the end 
of 1737. It was first under the editorship of John Martyn, 
a botanist, and Russel, a nonjuring clergyman, but Pope 
was the moving spirit and furnished many of its contri- 
butions.'^^ His enemies are attacked ; he and his friends are 
handsomely praised. The former are known as '^Theo- 
baldians," ''Grubeans," "Knights of the Batho3," while 

■^5 A Prologue to James Moore-Smythe's comedy Rival Modes, 
acted January 27, 1727, and the notes to Cooke's Hesiod, February, 
1728. Mrs. Haywood was a friend of Theobald. See Notes and Queries 
for 1854, Vol. II, p. 110. 

'' See Appendix, p. 295. 

'^ Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XIX. 



THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD" 137 

the latter are termed **Popeans" and ''Parnassians." The 
periodical gives the weekly proceedings of a fictitious Grubean 
society. Its verses, epigrams, and essays ridicule learning, 
antiquarianism, sciences, and particularly medicine, in fact, 
everything that would now be listed under scholarship or 
science.'^^ While Theobald receives frequent notices, Smythe 
at first is the main butt of its satire, but after Gibber became 
laureate, he takes Smythe's place. The attacks on Theo- 
bald follow the lines laid down by The Dunciad: his pan- 
tomimes, translations, and critical method are ridiculed. 
In this last he divides honors with Bentley, whose pro- 
pensities are frequently noticed. '^^ 

In 1730 Edward Young came to the poet's assistance with 
Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, Concerning the Authors of the Age, 
but spends most of his ammunition against Welsted and 
Smythe. The following year the Reverend James Miller 
sought the poet's favor with Harlequin-Horace or the Art 
of Modern Poetry. This is a general attack on Pantomimes, 
and Theobald, being the foremost creator of the serious 
parts, comes in for his share of abuse. One naturally looks 
for some word from Swift. At the beginning of the cen- 
tury he had plenty to say about Bentley, and according 
to Pope he saved The Dunciad. In Verses on the Death 
of Dr. Swift, written in 1731, he sarcastically mentions 
Theobald in the role of a reviser. In the introduction 
to his A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious 
Conversation he touches on the critic twice. ^^ 

The most persistent method of attacking Theobald and 
lessening the regard of the public for his labors lay through 
repeated depreciation of verbal criticism. As I tried to 

'8 See the satirical article on botany in No. 23, June 11, 1730. 
" Cf . Nos. 2, 28, 37, and 98. 

*" If Dean Jonathan's Parody on the 4th Chap, of Genesis, 1729, 
be his, he seems to take Theobald's part as regards Shakespeare. 



138 LEWIS THEOBALD 

show in the second chapter of this work, the stimulus given 
textual criticism by Bentley had called forth so much criti- 
cism as to put scholars upon the defensive. The enemies 
of Theobald found the ground fully prepared for them; 
all they had to do was to continue the attack along the 
same lines laid down by the enemies of Bentley and his 
school, but to include English as well as classical scholars. 
This amplification was all the easier inasmuch as the methods 
employed by Bentley and Theobald were identical. Here- 
after it is not unusual to find the two scholars joined in 
the attacks leveled at literal criticism. The accusations 
remain the same — the triviality, uselessness, and uncer- 
tainty of the pursuit. 

Shakespeare Restored caused a revival in the war against 
this form of criticism. William Broome fired the first shot. 
In 1726 he had praised Pope's Shakespeare, telling the great 
dramatist to rejoice, since revised by Pope's hand every 
Une shone in native brightness, a sentiment that is certainly 
a tribute to textual criticism as well as to the poet. But 
by March of the next year he has experienced a change 
of heart, for he has much to say against the study of texts. ^^ 
Since Theobald's first criticisms of Shakespeare had appeared 
in the interim, it doubtless had much to do with this sudden 
reversal of opinion. Broome holds that while criticism — he 
means verbal criticism by this general term — was useful 
in earlier ages, it has outlived its usefulness : 

It is ridiculous to make it the supreme business of life to repair 
the ruins of a decay'd word, to trouble the world with vain nicities 
about a letter, or a syllable or the transposition of a phrase, when 
the present reading is sufficiently intelligible. These learned 
triflers are mere weeders of an author, they collect the weeds for 
their own use, and permit others to gather the herbs and flowers. 
It would be of more advantage to mankind when once an author 

*^ Preface to Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. 



THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 139 

is faithfully published, to turn our thoughts from the words to the 
sentiments, and make them more easy and intelUgible. A skill 
in verbal criticism is in reality but a skill in guessing, and con- 
sequently he is the best critic who guesses best: A mighty at- 
tainment ! And yet with what pomp is a trivial alteration usher' d 
into the world? ^"^ 

It is strange that Broome could not see that Theobald, 
unlike Pope, sought to separate conjecture from guess work, 
and to establish it upon reason and authority. 

The following year Pope joined in the fray. In ''A Frag- 
ment of a Satire " he stigmatizes Theobald's work as the 
trivial pursuit of wrong-headed industry. Then in The 
Dunciad there are frequent slurs at his scholarship and 
several general attacks on verbal criticism. In the third 
book are found these Knes, 

"There, dim in clouds, the poreing Schohasts mark. 
Wits, who like Owls see only in the dark, 
A Lumberhouse of Books in ev'ry head. 
For ever reading, never to be read." 

to which the following note is appended : 

These few hues exactly describe the right verbal Critic: He 
is to his author as a Quack to his patients, the more they suffer 
and complain, the better he is pleas'd; like the famous Doctor 
of that sort, who put up in his bills, He delighted in matters of diffi- 
culty. Some one well said of these men, that their heads were 
Libraries out of Order .^^ 

In another place he brings forward a more serious accusation : 

Two things there are, upon the supposition of which the very 
basis of all Verbal Criticism is founded and supported: The first, 

82 His reference to weeds undoubtedly looks at a passage in the 
introduction to Shakespeare Restored, where Theobald compares the 
text of Shakespeare to an unweeded garden gone to seed. The last 
of the quotation reads like one of King's burlesque notes on Bentley's 
Horace. 

«3 11. 187-190, and note. 



140 LEWIS THEOBALD 

that an Author could never fail to use the best word, on every 
occasion: The second, that a Critic cannot chuse but know, which 
that is? This being granted whenever any word doth not fully 
content us, we take upon us to conclude, first that the author 
could never have us'd it, and secondly, that he must have used 
that very one which we conjecture in its stead. ^^ 

The poet and his associates carried on the attack in The 
Gruh-street Journal. But here Bentley more frequently 
than Theobald became the object of their satire, for Pope was 
coming to recognize in the classical critic the creator of the 
critical method and the great bulwark of textual criticism. 
Moreover, Bentley's personal characteristics, if not his 
reputation, made attacks on him more popular, though he 
never felt them. His vigorous condemnation of those who 
disagreed with him Pope satirized in A Sermon against 

8* A note at the beginning of the second book. I will also take the 
space to quote a note on a line in the third book, which is a clever 
burlesque of the notes contributed to Cooke's Hesiod. 

"V. 28, And length of Ears.] This is a sophisticated reading. I 
think I may venture to aJOarm all the Copyists are mistaken here: 
I believe I may say the same of the Critics; Dennis, Oldmixon, Welsted, 
have pass'd it in silence: I have always stumbled at it, and wonder'd 
how an error so manifest could escape such accurate persons. I dare 
assert it proceeded originally from the inadvertency of some Trans- 
criber whose head run on the Pillory mention'd two Unes before: It 
is therefore amazing that Mr. Curl himself should overlook it! Yet 
that Scholiast takes not the least notice hereof. That the learned 
Mist also reads it thus, is plain, from his ranging this passage among 
those in which our Author was blamed for personal Satire on a Man's 
Face (whereof doubtless he might take the Ear to be a part); So Uke- 
wise Concanen, Ralph, the Flying-Poet, and all the Herd of Com- 
mentators — Tota armenta sequuntur. 

"A very little sagacity (which all these gentlemen therefore wanted) 
will restore to us the true sense of the Poet, thus 

By his broad shoulders known, and length of years. 
See how easy a change! Of one single letter! That Mr. Settle was 
old is most certain, but he was (happily) a stranger to the Pillory. 
This Note is partly Mr. Theobald, partly Scriblerus." 



THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD" 141 

Adultery, the authorship of which he was forced by Bentley's 
son to deny. It was also during this period that Pope 
added a chapter to The Memoirs of Scriblerus and changed 
the Don Quixote of learning into the verbal critic. ^^ He 
introduced Bentley into his Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot; and 
had the second book of his Essay on Man made its appear- 
ance, the classical scholar doubtless would have figured, 
among scientists and virtuosos, as the greatest example 
of the misapplication of learning to a useless science.^ 
Such a position he holds in the fourth book of The 
Dunciad. 

By 1731 the feeling against criticism of this sort reached 
such a height as to cause one scholar to contemplate writing 
a pamphlet in its defense. ^^ This was Jortin, a man of 
high character and true scholarly instincts. Though he 
gave up the idea of his pamphlet, he has something to say 
about the matter. ^^ After remarking that critical learning 
has met with both humorous and serious adversaries, he 
defends it in somewhat the same manner as Thirlby : 

They who say that critical learning is trifling and useless, talk 
at random. Every unprejudiced person must allow that there 
are as many triflers in all other parts of learning as in this, and 
that criticism deserves to be reckoned among those studies which 
please and instruct. It does not indeed tend to make a man 
better and more virtuous, and therefore falls infinitely short of 
Ethics. It is not very beneficial to the commonwealth, and there- 
fore by my consent, may be placed beneath those studies, which 
tend to encrease the wealth and strength of a nation. It does not 
make bread cheaper, as Malherbe, though a poet, used to say of 

86 Chap. IX. 

8« Ruffhead, Life of Alexander Pope, 1769, pp. 267, 269. 

8' John Jortin, Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient 
and Modern, 1731. Preface to vol. 2. 

88 Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern, 
Preface to vol. 1. 



142 LEWIS THEOBALD 

poetry. It is like poetry upon another account also; it brings 
home usually but httle profit to those who spend their time in it. 

The greatest injury to the science, however, came from 
within the ranks of the critics themselves, from the greatest 
of them. Early in 1732 Bentley's remarkable edition of 
Milton appeared. News that Bentley had undertaken 
the work had spread abroad sometime before its appearance. 
Near the last of the previous October Theobald writes to 
Warburton, ''As to Milton, Dear Sir, Dr. Bentley is so far 
from having laid aside the Thoughts of it, that the whole 
Paradise Lost is work'd off, and the Book will be published 
before Christmas." ^^ Satiric emendations of Milton, reading 
astonishingly like those of Bentley that were to appear, 
were published in numbers of The Grub-street Journal as 
early as March, 1730.^^ 

To justify the many violent changes which he advocated, 
Bentley devised a theory. This theory was that Milton 
dictated his poem to a friend who saw it through the press. 
The friend was ignorant, malicious, careless, and everything 
else imaginable; he introduced words, lines, and passages 
into the text. The corruptions were then increased by the 
carelessness of the printers. Yet Bentley had hopes of 
restoring the original text by his sagacity. Fortunately he 
left the text as it was, putting his emendations and discus- 
sions in the margin or at the bottom of the page. 

It is hard to understand why the classical scholar ever 
produced such a work. There is a tradition that he under- 
took it at the desire of the queen, who wished to see the 
great critic employ his faculties on an English poet. More 
probably the critic had become obsessed with the idea of 
correcting, especially as his own efforts had done so much to 
weaken confidence in texts, and consequently respect for 

89 See Appendix, p. 278. 

90 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 425. 



THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD " 143 

them. Furthermore, the popularity of Shakespeare Re- 
stored may have inspired him to seek laurels in other fields. 
Yet he did not follow his own method, the method that 
the Shakespearean critic had employed with such good 
results. The only evidences of the classical scholar to be 
found in the work are seen in the vigorous logic of some of 
the notes. Of poetic appreciation there is no sign anywhere. 
As was the case with the edition of Horace, this work 
increased the intensity of the attacks on verbal criticism. 
Immediately there sprang into existence a host of small 
productions written against Bentley and his form of criti- 
cism. Yet in such high regard was emendation held that 
some of the condemnations take Bentley very seriously. ^^ 
Such a one was A Review of the Text of Milton's Paradise 
Lost, 1732, written by Zachary Pearce, a scholar of some 
reputation. In his preface he says. 

Dr. Bentley is deservedly distinguish'd for his superior Talents 
in Critical knowledge; they are owned by the unanimous Consent 
of the Learned World, and have gain'd him a Reputation which is 
real and substantial: but this will be understood with the Excep- 
tion to what he has done on Milton's Poem : In which tho' he has 
given us some useful and judicious Remarks, yet at the same time 
he has made many Emendations, which may justly be called in 
question. 

Though the unlearned might make free with Bentley's 
name, scholars were coming to feel more reverence and 
fear toward the great critic. Yet the desire to emend 
Milton seized even the critics of Bentley's edition. Pearce 
opposes Bentley's emendations and then gives some cor- 
rections of his own. 

^^ Francis Peck held that "as there are a great number of fine notes 
in the edition, there is no man who reads what the Doctor says, but, 
I fancy, will often agree with him." New Memoirs of . . . Milton, 
1740, p. 211. 



144 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Theobald did exactly the same things. He very emphati- 
cally resented Bentley's new departure. Before its ap- 
pearance he had deprecated the great scholar undertaking 
a work wherein the ladies and children were prepared to 
laugh at him. After he had examined the notes, he gave 
Warburton his estimate of the production : 

You want my opinion you say on Dr. Bentley's performance: 
and I'll give it you freely, but under the Seal of Friendship; 
I had a very great veneration for him as a classical Critic; and was 
very much afraid of his descending to the Levell of Women and 
Children; that is, of his putting himself in the Power of Coquets 
and Toupets to discant on. He has not infrequently, you know, 
run riot on the dead Languages; but here, to use the Cibberian 
phrase, he has outdone his usual Outdoings. He had never cer- 
tainly attain' d the serious Reputation of a Critick, si sic omnia 
Dixisset. I hope he does not write mahciously to turn the Art 
into Ridicule; but as Rose says of Sir Martin Mar-all Indeed, 
he has a rare way of acting a Fool, and does it so naturally, it can 
be scarce distinguished. 

So ridiculous appeared the notes to the EngUsh scholar that 
he entertained fears lest they were written to ridicule the 
art. Well might he fear such, for if the great classical scholar 
made such an appearance in an English author, what would 
be the value placed upon his own work. Furthermore this 
edition strengthened the growing tendency to associate 
Theobald with Bentley. Though there was some pleasure 
in being joined with so great a man, the Milton could not 
but cast a bad light on the coming edition of Shakespeare. 
That the possible injury to Theobald was seen by others 
is evinced by the fact that one pamphlet attacking Bentley 
was fathered on Theobald. ^^ 

While condemning so heartily Bentley's notes, he did not 
disdain in the privacy of the same letter to give an emenda- 

^ See Appendix, p. 299. 



145 

tion. He also successfully defended the text against one 
of Bentley's emendations. The latter critic could not under- 
stand Milton's peculiar use of the word '^ pernicious" and 
advocated a change. Theobald showed that the word was 
not derived from ''pernicies" but from ''pernicitas," thereby 
defeating the classical scholar in his own field. 

A little less than a year before the publication of Theo- 
bald's edition of Shakespeare, there appeared a poem entitled 
Of Verbal Criticism, issued anonymously but written by 
David Mallet. In the advertisement to the poem the author 
said the design was to rally the abuse of verbal criticism, 
and in the process he could not overlook the editor of Milton 
or the restorer of Shakespeare. The poem, he claimed, was 
written several months before its publication, but he had 
waited imtil the subscription for the new edition of Shake- 
speare had been closed. The satire was addressed to Pope, 
though the author asserted that it had been written without 
his knowledge.^^ 

While the title would suggest a general satire on the science, 
the attacks are made almost entirely against the two critics 
mentioned in the advertisement. Later versions of the 
satire tend to give Bentley a more prominent place. The 
poem is a miserable production, most of the charges being 
taken from *' A Fragment of Satire " and The Dunciad. The 
triviality of the scholiast's pursuits, his reading of obscure 
and dull authors, his clearing up of minor obscurities, are 
all stressed. In Bentley, Mallet sees the creator of the school 
of verbal critics, though he implies that in his edition of 
Milton the critic was imitating Theobald : 

"Yet he, prime pattern of the captious art, 
Out-tibbalding poor Tibbald, tops his part." 

There was nothing new in the attack. The same things 
had been said about Bentley's Horace years before, which 
^' See Lonnsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 434-436. 



146 LEWIS THEOBALD 

were then but a variation of the charges brought against 
the Royal Society. In that age scientific investigation and 
scholarly methods had to fight for existence. 

It was in the midst of feelings engendered by attacks of 
this kind that Theobald's edition appeared. It was success- 
ful in spite of them. Yet the feeling against textual criticism 
continued to exist. Fielding made a belated attack on 
Bentley's methods. ^^ Pope enlarged his charges in the 
fourth book of The Dunciad. George Turnbull, a dissenting 
minister with an interest in art, upheld the larger compre- 
hension of the thoughts and philosophy of the ancients 
against the useless study of words.^^ One of the last blasts 
was heard in Richard Kurd's letter to Jortin On the Delicacy 
of Friendship, 1755, where Pope's charges are revived and 
passages from his works quoted. This attack on Jortin 
was as unjust as it was uncalled for, yet Warburton, though 
Jortin 's friend, hailed it with glee, and transferred his affec- 
tions to the author. Later he had cause to rue the change, 
for he made a sorry figure in his quarrel with Hurd. 

After the death of Pope the opposition began to weaken. 
Johnson upheld the minute study of texts, though uncertain 
about conjecture; he wanted to hear no more about ^'the 
dull duty of an editor." The able editors of Shakespeare 
of the last quarter of the century placed scholarship in a 
more favorable light. So far had the victory been won, 
the victory of Bentley and Theobald against the poets and 
wits, that at the end of the century Porson could claim for 
verbal criticism a high place in the activities of man.^^ 

3* See the notes to his translation of Plutus, and Amelia, Book X, 
Chap. 1. 

^^ See Preface to his Three Dissertations, 1740, and Observations 
upon Liberal Education, 1742. This last work is remarkable in that 
it upholds the study of English grammar and composition against 
Latin and Greek. 

3® Museum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. 



147 

But in spite of the slanders of Pope and the attacks of 
his flatterers, Theobald's reputation did not wane. Pro- 
fessor Lounsbury has shown that by no means all the 
''Dunces" were dunces, and that instead of being annihilated 
by the satire, they were spurred to greater activity. ^^ This 
was essentially true of Theobald. The man who continued 
to enjoy the ardent assistance of Lady Delawar, the favor 
of Sir Robert Walpole, and the liberal patronage of Lord 
Orrery could hardly have been acclaimed a dunce. Theo- 
bald's persistence with his edition of Shakespeare, the 
encouragement he received, and the success of the work 
can point only to one conclusion. But striking evidence of 
the ineffectuality of his adversary's abuse is seen in his 
candidacy for the laureateship in December, 1730, certainly 
not the action of a man crushed in spirit and reputation. 
He was introduced by Lord Gage to Sir Robert Walpole, 
who recommended him warmly to the Duke of Grafton, 
the Lord Chamberlain, and this recommendation was 
seconded by the Prince of Wales. He was defeated, how- 
ever, by his successor in The Dunciad, to the surprise of 
many.^^ 

Theobald's purpose in seeking the position was to get a 
competence that would permit him to pursue his work on 
Shakespeare unhampered by financial cares. After his 
disappointment he asked Warburton whether he should 
spend any more time levee hunting. ^^ But though he failed 
in his object, his efforts were not altogether fruitless. The 

97 Text of Shakespeare, pp. 259 ff. 

98 "But the vogue of our few honest folks here is, that Duck is 
absolutely to succeed Eusden in the laurel, the Contention being 
between Concanen or Theobald, or some other hero of the The Dunciad" 
Swift's letter to Gay, November 19, 1730. F. E. Ball, The Corres- 
pondence of Jonathan Swift, vol. 4, p. 180. 

99 Letter dated December, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
ture, vol. 2, p. 616. 



148 LEWIS THEOBALD 

favor of Walpole had a good effect on the nobiUty, who were 
more likely to side with wit than scholarship, but whose 
money was very necessary for a subscription. In the dedica- 
tion to his Orestes, Theobald, after thanking Walpole for 
his kindness in recommending him, says his action 

ought to have a good Effect upon our Nobility, by curing that 
false and ungenerous Notion, upon which they proceed when 
they call a Man dull, because he is poor; and poor because he is 
dull: A piece of Sophistry which they have copied from some 
bad Wits among us, who judge in their own Case what they would 
allow in no other; and consider Success as the only Argument and 
Test of Merit. 

Walpole remained Theobald's friend for some time after 
the appearance of his Shakespeare, but never granted him 
what he so much wished, — a pension. 

Soon after the appearance of The Dunciad Theobald de- 
cided on a course of action from which he never swerved. 
This course was not to answer Pope's scurrilities with the 
like, but to rely upon his edition of Shakespeare to wipe 
out all scores.^^^ That he felt the sting of Pope's satire is 
evident enough from the various references to Pope in his 
private correspondence with Warburton. But he was wise 
enough to know that in one field only could he get the better 
of the poet. Once indeed he was almost tempted to reply. 
In a letter to Warburton he outlines his plan : 

As it is necessary I should now inform the publick, that I mean 
to attempt to give them an Edition of that Poet's text, together 
with my corrections, I have concluded to give this notice, not 
only by advertisements, but by an occasional pamphlet, which 
in order to retaliate some of our Editor's kindnesses to me, I mean 
to call. An Essay upon Mr. Pope's Judgment, extracted from his own 

^"o See Mist's Journal, June 22, 1728; Daily Journal, November, 
26, 1728; and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 248, 618, 
and 621. 



THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD" 149 

Works; and humbly addressed to him. In this, I have determined 
not to confine myseK to his Shakespeare, but to some Criticisms 
that he has made, and some that he might have made upon Homer.^°^ 

He then proposed an emendation on Eustathius. War- 
burton approved of his design, and in his next letter Theo- 
bald sent attacks on two of the notes to the translation. It 
was only unwilUngness to hurt Broome, who had assisted 
Pope, that kept him from carrying out his purpose, though 
he thought he saw in Broome's verses on Pope's Shakespeare 
a tacit insult to Shakespeare Restored. The real object 
in this undertaking, besides the exposure of Pope's ignorance, 
was to display the author's own ability as a classical scholar. 
Textual criticism in English had not established itself, and, 
as later in the preface of his edition of Shakespeare, Theo- 
bald thought to improve his reputation in a more orthodox 
field. In this same letter he says, *'I have been so fond as 
to exercise this office in some other language besides English.'* 

One attack on Pope has been attributed to Theobald, but 
without any apparent reason. In December, 1731, the 
poem Of False Taste appeared. The immediate suspicion was 
that the Duke of Chandos was satirized under Timon. The 
duke evidently thought so, too, for a short time afterwards 
he took out his revenge by subscribing for four sets of Theo- 
bald's edition of Shakespeare. ^*^2 The following month 
appeared A Miscellany on Taste, written to satirize Pope's 
taste in various fields, and containing among other things 
Theobald's letter to The Daily Journal of April 17, 1729, 
introduced to show Pope's taste in Shakespeare. ^^^ It is 

^"1 See Letters dated March 10, March 17, March 26, 1730. Nichols, 
Illustrations of Literature, pp. 551, 565, 581. 

^^ See Appendix, p. 298. The animosities aroused by Pope assisted 
Theobald in his subscriptions. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, vol. 3, p. 142. 

103 If Nichols is right in thinking that this letter was addressed 
to Concanen, the latter probably was the author of the Miscellany, 
for in it the letter is headed "To the Author," 



150 LEWIS THEOBALD 

probable that the work has been ascribed to Theobald on 
the strength of this letter, since all other evidence seems 
to point against the ascription. Only a few days before its 
appearance Theobald had occasion to write to Warburton 
about Pope's epistle; he mentions and quotes one attack 
on it, but has nothing to say of the Miscellany .^^"^ It hardly 
seems possible that had he been concerned in a production 
that was so soon to make its appearance, he would have said 
nothing of it to Warburton, to whom he readily enough 
communicated his design in regard to the contemplated 
essay on Pope's judgment. At another time when asked 
by Warburton concerning the authorship of an anonymous 
pamphlet he replied that had he written it, he would have 
made his friend his confidant.^"^ Hence it is reasonable to 
suppose he would have followed the same course in this case. 
That he had no intention of attacking Pope's poem is evident 
from the following passage of the letter written about the 
Epistle : 

'Tis thought by some here, that this piece has not contributed 
much more to the Credit of his Poesie, than of his Morals; but 
this is a Criticism I do not take upon me to meddle with. I men- 
tion it only, as it has occasion'd another satirical Poem by a Gentle- 
man of our Faction, Mr. Welsted, of Dullness and Scandal. 

This reliance on his edition to answer in full Pope's charges 
of stupidity wrought good results in that it intensified his 
study of Shakespeare's plays. But he was subject to many 
interruptions in his work, most of which were due to the 
necessity of earning a livelihood ; it was to obviate such 
hindrances that he tried to secure the laureateship. His 
legal profession, while never very exacting, required a cer- 
tain amount of time.^°® About the middle of 1730 he was 

^^ Letter to Warburton, January 8, 1732. Appendix C. 
105 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. 
^^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 597. 



THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 151 

incapacitated for a month because of a broken arm, an 
accident all the more unfortunate in that it caused him to 
miss seeing Lady Delawar, who at that time was arranging 
terms with Tonson. 

While preparing his edition of Shakespeare Theobald 
was also writing for the stage. In November, 1729, and 
January, 1730, he speaks of theatrical affairs interfering 
with his critical labors.^^^ He was then hard at work upon 
his Orestes,^^^ for in a letter of February 10, 1730, he notifies 
Warburton ''that Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal; and 
that my whole present time from morning to night, is em- 
ploy'd in a Copy by his Royal Highness's Command." ^°^ 
Though styled an opera, the production is really a drama, 
with the introduction of a few songs and dances. Theobald 
confessed to Warburton that in the play he imitated Shake- 
speare, especially Macbeth and Lear; it might also be noted 
that some passages show the influence of Aeschylus. While 
not extraordinarily successful, the play was by no means a 
failure. 

During the summer of the following year Theobald con- 
structed another tragedy, some selections from which he 
sent to Warburton. It must be confessed that his purpose 
was mercenary as well as artistic : 

In order to make Domestic affairs run as smoothly as may be, 
till I can bring this greater Affair to a Crisis, I have apply'd my 
uneasie Summer Months upon the Attempt of a Tragedy. Sit 
Verbo venia! I have a Design upon the Ladies' Eyes, as the Pas- 
sage to their Pockets."^ 

^07 Idem, vol. 2, pp. 288, 401. 
^ 108 Orestes : A Dramatic Opera As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal 
in Lincoln^ s-Inn Fields. Written by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed 
for John Watts at the Printing Office in Wild-Court, near Lincoln* s-Inn 
Fields. MDCCXXXI. 

109 Appendix C. 

"0 Letter dated December 18, 1731. Appendix C. 



152 LEWIS THEOBALD 

The play was an adaptation of The Duchess of Malfi under 
the title The Fatal Secret,^^^ but with the names of Webster's 
characters retained. It was booked to appear early in 1732, 
but since Rich had fallen into difficulties, Theobald did not 
press the matter. In a letter dated March 10, 1733, he says, 
"I have for some Time past had the additional Fatigue of 
bringing my Tragedy on which is to make its Appearance 
inamediately after Easter Holidays." ^^^ 

Some of Theobald's activities lay in fields that could offer 
no financial reward. He had always been a close student 
of the classics, and success in textual criticism in English 
authors inspired him, as we have seen, to include the classics 
in his field. Near the end of 1730 he writes Warburton 
that he has gone through the whole of Aristophanes and his 
scholiast. ^^^ The following year he contributed a number of 
emendations on Athenaeus, Suidas, Eustathius, and Aeschy- 
lus to Jortin's periodical Miscellaneous Observations upon 
Authors. Most of these had previously been communicated 
to Warburton, and will be considered in another chapter. 
In this same periodical appeared his emendations on Shake- 
speare's poems.^^'^ Theobald prefaced this article with an 
account of its origin : 

* "^ The Fatal Secret, a tragedy. London, 1735. 
"2 Appendix C. 
"' Appendix, p. 276. 

^^* Some of the poems are not Shakespeare's. The following emen- 
dations are generally accepted now. 

Venus and Adonis : Stanza 153, "Scowling" for "Scolding.'' 
Stanza 169, "Stories" shown to be a verb. 
Theobald's change of "tombs" to 
"domes" is not accepted. 
Stanza 198, "here in my breast" for "here 
is my breast." 
Rape of Lucrece : Stanza 5, "ears" for "cares" (ascribed to 
Gildon). 



THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD '^ 153 

Upon our casually talking together of Shakespeare's poems, you 
ask'd me if they were in the same corrupt state as his Plays are 
found to be; and whether I had taken notice of any errors in 
them. I told you I had; and I now send you the correction of 
a few passages, from a cursory view, in which they have suffered 
injury from the Printer, and not found redress from the Editor. 

In spite of all his efforts, there is no doubt that at times 
Theobald keenly felt the pinch of poverty. Especially 
unfortunate it was that at the time when his mind should 
have been unembarrassed with financial care, he was worried 
and harassed with making ends meet. As we have seen, 
he speaks of "the uneasie months" of the summer of 1731, 
and toward the end of the year he communicates his hard- 
ships to Warburton : 

Whelm'd as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink One of 
my obstinate Phlegm) yet at your Instigation I have rous'd and 
exerted [myself] against the strongest Attacks of Calamity.^" 

A month later he is in even worse circumstances. 

I have received the pleasure of yours, which comes fraught 
with kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions. And it is 
no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be the Test of 
Friendship, as it has ever been reckon'd, I have one sincere and 
cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I think the present 
Period of my Life may timely fall under that Denomination; for 
however the Affair, which I am now bringing to bear may in time 
retrieve me from Necessities; yet at present, when I should set 
down with a Mind and Head at ease and disembarass'd, the Sever- 

Stanza 90, "Hast thou command" for 

"Ha'st thou commanded." 
Stanza 152, "graft" for "grass." 
In the Passionate Pilgrim he changes "girdle" to "kirtle," and sup- 
ports the change by quotations from Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, 
and Jonson. He also notices that from this poem Milton got the 
thought and concluding turn for II Penseroso and L' Allegro. 
115 Letter to Warburton, October 30, 1731. Appendix C. 



154 LEWIS THEOBALD 

ity of a rich Creditor (and therefore the more unmercifull) has 
strip'd me so bare, that I never was acquainted with such Wants, 
since I knew the use of Money. But when I am labouring at so 
much Philosophy in practice, as to persuade myself, not to feel 
Adversity; I am angry with myself for giving my Friend a part 
of that Pain which I am professing to get rid of in my Bosom. 
It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof) that I am in no 
degree the Philosopher."^ 

Such was the condition of the man whom Pope, ably 
assisted by the ''rich creditor," was pursuing with a cold 
and relentless malice. A mighty achievement and worthy 
of the man! As for the "one sincere and cordial friend" 
in his extremity, who was at the time enjoying a comfortable 
living at Newark in Nottinghamshire, we are tempted to 
forget ourselves in our indignation. This same divine a few 
years later begrudged his friend the profits of his edition, 
and still later joined in the chorus of detraction and false- 
hood from which Theobald's reputation has so long suffered. 

This period marks the low ebb of Theobald's affairs. Soon 
prospects began to look brighter, owing in some degree to 
the patronage of John Boyle, Earl of Orrery. The earl's 
father, who had nominally been Bentley's chief opponent 
in the famous controversy, had been Theobald's patron in 
the past, and to him the scholar had dedicated several of 
his early productions. In later years, however, he seems 
to have forgotten the future critic. Soon after the earl's 
death, his son came forward with aid. In a letter to War- 
burton, written near the close of 1731, Theobald speaks of 
assistance from "my good friend Lord Orrery," a phrase 
he uses a number of times. "^ 

In March the earl placed his father's letters in Theobald's 

"'^ Letter to Warburton, November, 1731. Appendix C. 
"' Letter to Warburton, December 18, 1731. Appendix C. 



THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 155 

hands to be regulated. ^^^ The late earl had been ambassador 
at Brussels during the latter part of Queen Anne's reign, so 
that the correspondence represented letters from many of 
the greatest men of that time. Especially was Theobald 
delighted with the correspondence of Bolingbroke, who did 
not confine himself to state affairs. The time required for 
the task detracted from Theobald's study but aided his 
finances. A month or two later he addressed An Epistle 
to Orrery devoted mainly to praise of the earl's father,"^ 
which verses Theobald said his patron made golden to him.^^^ 
The dedication of all seven volumes of the edition of Shake- 
speare to the lord was the final form Theobald's gratitude 
took, and for this he was handsomely rewarded. 

"8 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. 

"3 See Appendix, p. 302. 

"« Letter to Warburton, June 20, 1732. Appendix C. 



CHAPTER V 

THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 

Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was slow in making 
its appearance. In the spring of 1728 he had first made 
known his purpose of pubhshing remarks on all the plays. 
When Pope's second edition made necessary the post- 
ponement of publication, the work was promised for Janu- 
ary of the following year. For some reason the date was 
again postponed, but in April of the same year Theobald 
writes Warburton that his remarks ''will now shortly appear 
in the World." ^ Yet no volumes were forthcoming. It 
is possible that as he realized how he had underrated the 
task he had set himself, he saw that more time was impera- 
tive. It is also probable that his subscriptions were meeting 
with such success as to inspire him with the more ambitious 
purpose of editing the plays, though at first he was under 
the impression that Tonson had the right of property in 
Shakespeare's text. Professor Lounsbury thinks that the 
subscriptions to the Remarks were not sufficient to justify 
Theobald in prosecuting his design ; ^ yet in November, 1729, 
he speaks of Lady Delawar's assistance among the nobility, 
and of having the honor of the king's name.^ It is more 
probable that the success of his subscriptions encouraged 
him to the larger undertaking, for in the same letter he says, 

^ Letter of April 15, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 222. 

2 Text of Shakespeare, p. 422. 

' Letter of November 6, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 254. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 157 

*' I may venture to join the Text to my Remarks." By March 
of the following year he had definitely decided to edit Shake- 
speare.^ 

At this time Theobald, having read through the eight 
volumes of Pope's second edition, was beginning to collect 
all his notes, and toward this end he asked Warburton to 
return him his letters, promising to send them back if they 
were desired.^ He had made such progress with his labors 
that he was arranging for the publication of the edition. 

By the way that gentleman [Tonson] and I are coming to a Treaty 
together. He has been with my Friend, the Lady De la Warre, 
and submitts to make her the Arbitra tress of Termes betwixt us 
for my publishing an edition of Shakespeare. He says, a brace 
of hundreds shan't break Agreements. This is talking boldly; 
and I wish heartily his name was John. I shall know the Issue 
in about a fortnight; and so soon as known, with great pleasure 
communicate it.® 

But the summer wore on, and no agreement was made. It 
is possible that the contract would have been closed had 
Theobald not missed seeing Lady Delawar who had inter- 
viewed Tonson before she left for the country.^ 

In the last week of October the contract with Tonson 
was finally signed. Out of the depths of distress and dis- 
couragement Theobald tells Warburton that 

The Call of Reputation so justly urged by my Dearest Friend, 
startled me from my Lethargy, and you'll begin to think I have 

4 Letter of March 10, 1730. Idem, vol. 2, p. 551. 

^ See Appendix, p. 265. 

« Letter of April 25, 1730, Appendix C. 

^ This lady was of no little assistance to the scholar. She carried 
her labors in his behalf into those circles to which he had no access; 
the large number of nobility, some of them Pope's friends, who sub- 
scribed to the edition, was in great part due to her efforts. That she 
was watchful for Theobald's interest is seen in the excellent terms she 
finally secured from Tonson. 



158 LEWIS THEOBALD 

been awake, when I have done myself the Pleasure to let you 
know, I have at last fix'd the Proteus. No longer ago than Thurs- 
day, Tonson and I exchang'd Articles for the PubUcations of Shake- 
speare. Till I could bring this agreeable Point to bear, I was 
determined to be silent; and do me the justice in your kind thoughts 
to believe, that neither awkward Disgust, Disregard, nor Indolence 
have kept me dumb: but only the strong Desire of opening my 
Correspondence with this important Piece of good News, upon 
which I know, I shall have your heartiest Congratulations.* 

Before Lady Delawar had approached Tonson, Theobald 
had begun negotiations with some other booksellers, whose 
terms, however, were so much more unsatisfactory than 
those of Pope's publisher, that they were not to be con- 
sidered. After the contract with Tonson had been closed, 
these publishers complained to Warburton of the treatment 
they had received. In response to Warburton 's query- 
about the matter Theobald wrote in the same letter. 

As to the Booksellers, Dear Sir, who once made some Overtures 
to me, you hinted that they complain'd I had not dealt so hon- 
ourably with them. I fancy, you will be satisfied I can turn the 
Tables upon them, when I tell you, Tonson has acceded to double 
the Termes they offer' d me. I was by their Contract to have 
had the labouring Oar upon me, to have been entitled only to a 
first Payment, and they to have received the Second: I have now 
closed my Agreement to have the Work published in 6 Vols, in 
8vo, to have 400 Copies, compleat in Sheets, deUver'd me on a 
Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever; and 100 Copies 
more on Fine Royal Paper, I only paying for the Paper: So that 
if I can have my compliment of Subscriptions, the small paper 
will bring me in 800 guineas; and the Books in Royal 300 more: 
besides which I have reserv'd the Liberty of prefixing a Dedica- 
tion to each Volume. 

From this account it is clear that the booksellers had no 

case at all ; they were simply outbid. They may have joined 

« Letter of October 30, 1730. See Appendix C. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 159 

with Tonson in the pubUcation, but it is evident that Theo- 
bald's contract was with Tonson alone. 

These liberal terms compare most favorably with the 
£215 Pope received for his edition.^ The list of subscribers 
shows that Theobald fell short of his complement by only 
two sets, which probably were subscribed for with the under- 
standing that the subscriber's name should not appear in print. 
While many of Pope's friends had no aversion to seeing their 
names in the edition, there must have been a few who feared 
to incur the poet's wrath. It was with great difficulty that 
Theobald wrung from the Earl of Tyrconnel a reluctant 
consent to publish his name. For this reason it is safe to 
infer that the editor profited to the extent of 1100 guineas. 
When to this sum there are added the 100 guineas he received 
from Lord Orrery for the dedication and the twenty pounds 
from the Prince of Wales for his set, no one can complain 
that Theobald did not receive adequate compensation. At 
least he obtained more for his work than any other editor 
of Shakespeare, with the barely possible exception of Johnson. 

The next month Pope, reading of Tonson's contract with 
Theobald in The Grub-street Journal, wrote in great pertur- 
bation to the publisher regarding the truth of the notice. 
Tonson replied that it was true, excusing himself on the 
ground that other publishers were negotiating with Theo- 
bald, and that the edition would be brought out regardless 
of his part, so that it was for Pope's interest as well as his 
own that he should be one of the publishers.^^ The poet pre- 

^ It is worth noting how eager the publishers were to undertake the 
"Dunce's" edition. That a scholar's edition should appear more 
profitable than a poet's is a significant fact in the history of English 
scholarship. 

^0 This was not the motive that inspired Tonson to underrate the 
edition. He dehberately outbid the others, and with him alone were 
the articles drawn up. It was to conceal the real motive that he had 
Theobald change a passage in the preface, which in the first draft 



160 LEWIS THEOBALD 

tended to be satisfied with this explanation, since, he as- 
serted, it was possible for the publisher to protect his repu- 
tation. He soon set to work, however, to devise a scheme 
whereby he might injure his adversary. In a letter ad- 
dressed to the younger Tonson he enclosed an unsealed letter 
to the publisher's father, in which he spoke of having a plan 
whereby not only Shakespeare but all the other best English 
poets could be published with much profit. If Tonson read 
the letter, he expressed no interest in the project, but re- 
turned the communication to Pope, with the suggestion that 
it could better be sent direct to its destination. No further 
mention of the plan was made.^^ 

As the year 1731 drew to a close, Theobald, considering 
his critical labors over, was at work on the preface. ^^ He 
expected the edition to appear early in the following year,^^ 
and Tonson had told him that already there were great 
expectations of it.^^ By the last of December everything 
was ready for the printer, upon whom the editor placed 
the responsibility for the early publication of the work : 
*'To guess yet at the likely time of publication is impossible, 

read, "I must do him [Tonson] the Justice to declare, that he with 
great Readiness came into a Treaty with me for this Work; But having 
just then glutted the Trade with a large edition by Mr. Pope in Twelves, 
he frankly told me, he could not with any Face or Conscience, pre- 
tend to throw out another Impression, before those Books were a little 
vended: And so Time was unavoidably lost." (See Appendix, p. 284.) 
In the printed passage the reason for delay is given as follows: "The 
throwing my whole Work into a different Form to comply with this 
proposal was not the slightest Labour: And so no little Time was 
unavoidably lost." 

" See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 241-245, 

^2 See Appendix, pp. 283, 284, and Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
ture, vol. 2, p. 626. 

^3 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. Warburton said 
it would appear by March. Nichols, vol. 2, p. 13. 

" See appendix, p. 290. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 161 

till our printers give us experience what dispatch they can 
make on their part." ^^ 

Nothing was heard of the edition for nearly a year when 
Theobald informed Warburton that Shakespeare was 
groaning under two presses. ^^ In January of the next year 
he speaks of ^'the constant Attachment to which I am 
pinned down in the correction of Shakespeare," and later 
adds, ''My Author goes on apace; and I hope in six weeks 
the Presses will get through the seven Volumes." ^^ The 
number of volumes had been increased from six to seven, 
owing doubtless to the expansion of his notes. Two months 
later he shows signs of impatience at the delay: ''As to 
Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to advertise 
that it will be ready to be deliver' d to the Subscribers by 
the latter end of next Month." ^^ He then adds that he has 
had the luck to enrich his "list with her Royal Highness, 
the Princess Royal, and many Names of the highest Dis- 
tinction." 

May came and went, and still no edition. In June Theo- 
bald gave Warburton a full explanation of the cause of the 
delay. After explaining his lapse in the correspondence 
on the ground that he was waiting until his edition was 
printed, he adds. 

But such has been the State of Printing with us the last Season 
that with all the Industry and SoUicitation imaginable on my 

" Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 626. The date of 
the letter is missing, but it lies between December 18, 1731, and the 
end of the year. 

^« Letter of September 19, 1732. Appendix C. 

" Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C. The fourth day of 
the following month Warburton wrote Stukely, "If you have an op- 
portunity, pray ask Watts, by-the-by, when Theobald's Shakes- 
peare is like to come out." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
p. 19. 

18 Letter to Warburton, March 10, 1733. Appendix C. 



162 LEWIS THEOBALD 

part, I have not yet been able to bring it to the wish'd Period. 
However, the Comfort is, Hamlet and Othello are All that want 
to be completed. The Source of this slow Proceeding, Dear Sir, 
has been this. The great number of our weekly Subscriptions, 
set on Foot by Journeymen Printers has caus'd such a general 
Desertion of them from the estabhshed Presses, and render'd 
them so very peremptory and insolent, that it has been half the 
Work of the Printers to hawk out for Men; so that tho' I received 
8 Sheets per Week from each Press at my setting out, that Num- 
ber has been too often reduc'd to two. This is a Fact so well 
known with us in Town, that as I advertised that compleat Volumes 
might be seen at my House, to the Intent the Diffident might have 
the Opportunity of convincing themselves, I hope my Subscribers 
will do me the Justice to make this Distinction that I am the 
Editor, and not the Printer; so, at least they will allow for a Delay 
which cannot be thrown at my Door; and so, not be too busie 
with my Reputation.^^ 

When Warburton, beginning to get uneasy over the 
postponement of the edition, took occasion to write Theo- 
bald about the matter, the latter replied, '^I thank God, 
the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, and nothing remaining 
to do but the Dedication, Preface and List." ^^ Later in 
October it was promised that Shakespeare would be published 
sometime in November.^^ Yet the year came to a close 
without witnessing the appearance of the work. At last, 
in January of 1734, it reached the public, copies being de- 
livered to subscribers at Theobald's home in Great Russel 
Street. 

In the printed preface Theobald attributed the delay to 
his change in plan and to his disinclination to hurry anything 
crude into the world. Yet from the above account it seems 
clear that the slow process through which the edition went 

" Letter of June 30, 1733. Appendix C. 

20 Letter of October 17, 1733. Appendix 0. 

21 Letter of October 25, 1733. Appendix C. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 163 

was due rather to the pubUshers than to the editor's own 
desires or necessities. Tonson's unwilHngness to issue 
the volumes before he had disposed of Pope's second edition 
and the difficulty experienced in the printing explain the 
apparent procrastination. There is no doubt that the edi- 
tion profited by the delay, for Theobald continued at his 
labors up to the last minute, but it was not of his own 
choosing. 

In discussing the edition it first becomes necessary to trace 
the development of the preface, for that part of the work 
has been made the basis of an unjust accusation of theft. 
When Warburton heard that an agreement had been reached 
with Tonson, he expressed anxiety as to the preface the editor 
might prefix to the production. There seems no reason 
to doubt that as early as this the egotistical clergyman had 
designs on that part of the work. If so, Theobald easily 
fell into the trap. 

I am extremely obliged, for the tender concern you have for 
my reputation in what I am to prefix to my Edition: and this 
part, as it will come last in play, I shall certainly be so kind to 
myseK to communicate in due time to your perusal. The whole 
affair of Prologomena I have determined to soften into a Preface. 
. . . But, Dear Sir, will you at your leisure hours, think over for 
me upon the contents, topics, orders, etc., of this branch of my 
labour? You have a comprehensive memory and a happiness of 
digesting the matter joined to it, which my head is often too much 
embarrassed to perform; let that be the excuse for my inabihty. 
But how unreasonable is it to expect this labour, when it is the 
only part in which I shall not be able to be just to my friends: 
for, to confess assistance in a Preface will, I am afraid, make me 
appear too naked.^^ 

22 Letter of November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Ldterature, 
vol. 2, p. 621. This letter was among those returned to Theobald, 
but Warburton was careful to make a transcript of it, which he placed 
with the letters he had retained. See Appendix, p. 344. 



164 LEWIS THEOBALD 

This last sentence ran counter to Warburton's desire, but 
had he been unwiUing to proceed on these terms, he should 
have stated his objections. 

The ambitious divine, however, acquiesced so completely 
in Theobald's proposal that the latter hastened to com- 
municate what he had done on the preface : 

I received by your Last (no. Ill) of the 22 of Nov. your kind 
Assurances with Regard to my Preface; the contents of which 
I am endeavouring to modell in my Head, in order to communicate 
them to you, for your Directions & Refinement. I have already 
rough-hewn the Exordium and Conclusion: the Latter of which 
I now send you a Transcript of, to shew you how methodical I 
am; and by my next, I shall submit the Opening to your Perusal. 
I beg earnestly, Dear Sir, you will not be tender of altering, every- 
where (except in my Acknowledgments to my Friends); I would 
have the Whole both amuse and strike. What I shall send you 
from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials: which I hope 
may grow into a fine Building under your judicious Management. 
In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata rotundis, etc. ^^ 

Since I have not been able to find Theobald's next letter, 
it is impossible to say how much of the preface he com- 
municated to his assistant. 

Upon reading the parts communicated to him, Warburton 
made several criticisms in which Theobald immediately 
acquiesced. When the squeamish divine expressed a fear 
that certain prejudices might be aroused by a clergyman 
engaging in criticisms of this kind, his friend removed a 
phrase about his becoming ''a Labourer in the Vineyard, '^ 
and promised to submit to his approval everything that 
should be said upon that head, as well as the other contents 
of the preface.^ Fault was also found with the disconnected 

23 Letter of December 4, 1731. Appendix C. 

2* Cf. Preface to Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 1747. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 165 

nature of the specimens presented, to which Theobald re- 
pHed : 

I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts of 
my Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given you the Con- 
clusion, and the Manner in which I meant to start) to give 
you a List of all the other general Heads designed to be handled, 
then to transmit to you, at proper Leisure, my rough Working 
off of each respective Head, that you might have the Trouble only 
of refining and embellishing with additional Inrichments; of the 
general Arrangement, which you should think best for the whole; 
and of making the proper Transitions from Subject to Subject, 
which I account no inconsiderable Beauty. If you think right 
to indulge me in this Scheme my next shall be employ'd in Prose- 
cution of it.2^ 

This proposal evidently met with Warburton's approval, 
for in his next letter Theobald says: "I intend very soon 
to trouble you with a prosecution of the Preface." ^^ Since 
there has been discovered no letter giving the topics to be 
discussed, it is impossible to say just how large was War- 
burton's contribution to the preface. 

In the same letter the editor first mentioned his purpose 
of inserting classical emendations in the preface and notes 
to his edition of the dramatist, a procedure that has gained 
him the charge of pedantry from his time to ours. Yet 
even in regard to this matter he was careful to ask his friend's 
advice, at the same time cautioning him against too ready 
an approval, for he felt that every opportunity of decrying 
him as a pedant would be seized. 

The occasional Insertion of a few Emendations from some Greek 
Authors, I certainly think may be of signal Service to my Repu- 
tation: if you think they may safely be interspers'd without sus- 
picion of Pedantry. I would not voluntarily draw that Ridicule 

'* Letter of December 18, 173L Appendix C. 

^ Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. The date of 
the letter lies between December 18, 1731, and the end of the year. 



166 LEWIS THEOBALD 

upon me from the Sneerers. You are anxious, Dear Sir, for every 
Part of my Character: but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress'd 
up in too glaring colours. To be a little diffident, will secure 
one from much Envy and Detraction. 

In spite of the caution his friend thought they could be in- 
serted without seeming pedantic. Not only did War- 
burton approve, he actually encouraged the unfortunate 
editor in following this wholly unnecessary course. ^^ 

For over a year the preface does not figure in the cor- 
respondence, but early in 1733 Theobald writes that he will 
shortly *'sit down upon that fine Synopsis, which you so 
modestly call the Skeleton of a Preface." ^s n [^ h^j.^ ^q 
tell exactly what is meant here by Synopsis or Skeleton, 
but it is plain that by no stretching of the terms can they 
be forced to signify anything finished. Yet that Theobald 
took over passages from Warburton cannot be denied. The 
latter, although fully aware of the terms upon which he was 
assisting his correspondent, had not hesitated to mention 
to some of his friends his participation in the work. Thus 
when he saw the printed preface, he at once informed the 
editor that it contained passages which his friends knew 
to be his. It is not improbable that he was trying to force 
Theobald to make a public acknowledgment of his assistance, 
as indeed the editor might have done. 

If this was his intent, he was unsuccessful, for Theobald 
replied, with unnecessary modesty for himself and un- 
warrantable admiration for his friend, "Let those preac- 
quainted Friends frankly know, I embraced them in a just 
preference to what I could myself produce on the Subject." 
Then he adds, as if divining Warburton's motive, ''Nor 
would I have chose tacitly to usurp the Reputation of them, 
but as I formerly hinted, and you joined with me in senti- 

27 See Letter of September 17, 1732. Appendix C. 

28 Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 167 

ment, it would have looked too poor to have confess'd 
Assistance towards so slight a Fabrick as my Preface." ^9 

Yet Warburton was not content to let his part in the 
performance go unrecorded. In his copy of Theobald's 
Shakespeare he marked all the passages which he considered 
his own. Upon this basis Mr. Smith accuses the scholar of 
dullness and theft, the first because he called upon his friend 
for assistance, the second because he did not publicty ac- 
knowledge that assistance. ^^ It was only an habitual lack 
of self-confidence and a greatly exaggerated idea of his 
friend's ability that made Theobald quick to take advantage 
of the insinuated offer of help. As for "theft," if the accept- 
ing what is freely given, with the mutual understanding 
that no open acknowledgment can be made, comes under 
that head, he is guilty. From our point of view the editor 
should not have taken credit for what was not his, but some 
term other than the one given above must be used to express 
the fault. 

Mr. Smith has taken some pains to show that Warburton 
was truthful in the passages he marked, pointing out that 
four of the thirteen can be proved his, and expressing the 
belief that we have no reason to doubt the others. He 
thinks Theobald confirmed the authenticity of Warburton's 
claims by omitting in his second edition several passages 
either claimed by Warburton or known to be his. Since 
the editor omitted some passages that were not claimed by 
his assistant and retained some that were, little reliance 
can be placed upon evidence of this kind. Yet from what 
I have learned of Theobald's nature, I think it probable 
that, after his break with his friend, he omitted all the pass- 
ages not his own. 

29 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 

30 D. Nichol Smith, Eighteenth-century Essays on Shakespeare, 1903, 
Introduction and Preface. 



168 LEWIS THEOBALD 

If this is true, Warburton claimed more than his share. 
In one instance, at least, some proof is available. War- 
burton marked the passage explaining the difference be- 
tween Theobald's edition and Bentley's Milton. After 
the publication of Shakespeare, Theobald, being somewhat 
fearful of the way Bentley might receive the distinction, 
wrote as follows : 

As to Dr. Bentley (whatever the penetration of some readers may 
divine on this head) in shaking off the Similitude betwixt our 
Tasks, I hope that neither he, nor his Friends will see cause to sus- 
pect any Sneer. The Stating the Difference was absolutely neces- 
sary on my own side, and I think I have avoided saying anything 
derogatory on his.^^ 

This last sentence forces the belief that Theobald was the 
author of the passage ; had he received assistance from his 
friend, some mention of it would have been made. 

While a few of Warburton's observations may be acute, 
Theobald's reputation would not have suffered much, had 
he been denied his friend's assistance. In fact, he has suf- 
fered more in receiving it, for Warburton was not high- 
minded enough to keep silent about a gift he freely made. 
A little over a year after he broke with Theobald, he wrote 
the Reverend Thomas Birch, 

You will see in Theobald's heap of disjointed stuff, which he calls 
a Preface to Shakespeare, an observation upon those poems which 
I made to him, and which he did not understand, and so has made 
it a good deal obscure by contracting my note; for you must 
understand that almost all that Preface (except what relates to 
Shakespeare's Life, and the foolish Greek conjectures at the end) 
was made up of notes I sent him on particular passages which he 
has there stitched together without head or tail.^^ 

31 See Appendix, p. 324. 

32 Letter dated November 24, 1737. Nichols, Illustrations of Lit- 
erature, vol. 2, p. 81. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 169 

This was a gross exaggeration of Warburton's part in the 
treatise, as well as too harsh a criticism of Theobald's. The 
poems referred to are U Allegro and IlPenseroso, and Johnson 
later, in his life of Milton, showed the observation to be in- 
correct. Furthermore, having encouraged Theobald to 
throw in ''the foolish Greek notes," he had approved of 
them when they appeared.^^ Whether he approved or dis- 
approved of the notes is of no moment, for his Greek was 
not sufficient to make him a competent judge, but the 
complete change in opinion is only another instance of that 
gentleman's character, interesting in this case in that it 
shows his opposition to Theobald even before he became 
associated with Pope. 

These Greek notes — and they have been condemned by 
all the students of the edition — are ostensibly inserted to 
uphold the value of literal criticism. The real reason, 
however, for their insertion was, as Theobald confessed,^ 
to help his reputation. To us who five at a time when 
scholarship in Enghsh letters is based on a sound foundation 
of respect, these critical attempts in an alien field seem 
entirely out of place, but when Theobald wrote, he was 
really the first to examine critically an English text. The 
classics had long been the subject of investigation by 
scholars, and Bentley had given a great impetus to textual 
criticism. Yet even the dignity of classical studies had 
not been sufficient to prevent the attacks of satirists. What, 
then, was Theobald to expect, who, by undertaking a task 
devoid of the sanction of tradition, had laid himself all the 
more open to satire ? Thus it is only natural that he should 
have attempted to defend himself by showing his ability 
in a subject which the public regarded with some favor. 

33 "I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you." Theobald's 
letter to Warburton dated March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 
^ See ante, p. 165. 



170 LEWIS THEOBALD 

The preface, though not bad, is by no means extraordinary. 
The hfe of Shakespeare, with which it begins, is mainly from 
Rowe's account. This is followed by a discussion of Shake- 
speare's character as a writer, including his love of music 
and knowledge of nature. To throw Ught on the latter, 
the dramatist is compared with Milton, Addison, and 
Jonson. Shakespeare's learning is subjected to a short 
and indecisive discussion, in which attention is called to 
his use of Latin derivatives. Then follow in rapid succession 
the disadvantages under which the poet's reputation rested, 
reasons for corruptions in the text, and the method of curing 
them. There is also a rather extended defense of verbal 
criticism, the editor replying most energetically to Mallet's 
poem Of Verbal Criticism. The preface closes with the 
Greek notes and an acknowledgment of assistance, in which 
he is especially eulogistic of Warburton. 

It is not upon the preface that Theobald's reputation 
rests, but upon the edition proper. This was a success 
because he brought to his task the true idea of an editor's 
duty, and enunciated and employed a method that was sure 
to gain results. Early in his correspondence he made clear 
to Warburton his conviction concerning fidelity to the text. 
"I ever labour," he writes, ''to make the smallest devia- 
tions that I can possibly from the text ; never to alter at all, 
where I can by any means explain a passage into sense; 
nor even by any emendations to make the author better 
where it is probable the text came from his hands." ^^ A 
note in the edition reads to the same effect: 'Svhere the 
Authority of all Books makes the Poet commit a Blunder, 
(whose general Character it is, not to be very exact;) tis 
the Duty of an Editor to shew him as he is and to detect 
all fraudulent tampering to make him better." ^^ It was 

^ Letter of April 8, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 210. 3fi Vol. 4, p. 112. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 171 

this conscientious scruple that made him restore to their 
proper places the passages Pope had degraded. Since few 
men are as good as their creed, it is not surprising to find 
Theobald departing at times from this high standard, yet 
the spirit of such a conviction is seen throughout the whole 
work. 

He also realized that it was incumbent upon an editor 
to be thorough in whatever he undertook. In his intended 
essay on Pope's judgment, he rebuked the poet's own hap- 
hazard methods with the assurance that *'we word-catchers. 
Sir, are a strange species of animals that love to go thorough- 
stitch with everything we take in hand." ^^ Against Pope's 
strictures about his restoring lost puns, he dauntlessly replied, 
*'Tho' my Correction restores but a poor Conundrum^ yet 
if it restores the Poet's Meaning, it is the Duty of an Editor 
to trace him in his lowest Conceits." ^^ This scholarly 
feeling for thoroughness constantly appears in his private 
correspondence. When he falls short of his ideal, it is owing 
chiefly to the lack of materials rather than to indolence. 

Not only was Theobald the first to insist that the editor 
of an English classic had any duties at all; he was the first 
to analyze the work to be done. In his preface he divides 
an editor's province into three divisions : the emendations of 
corrupt passages; the explanation of obscure or difl&cult 
ones ; and an inquiry into the beauties and defects of com- 
position. This last, more strictly termed ''literary criticism," 
he hinted, did not necessarily belong to an editor, and since 
it required no special qualifications of learning, was open 
to all who were willing. What Theobald was concerned 
with — what every editor is primarily pledged to — was to 
give the best text possible illuminated with all necessary 
explanations. By emendation he meant not only correcting 

''' Nichols, Illustrations of Literaiure, vol. 2, p. 554. 
" Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 149. 



172 LEWIS THEOBALD 

by conjecture, but also the restoring, by collation, of a better 
variant reading. 

After this analysis Theobald points out the method by 
which he gained the ends mentioned above. To establish a 
correct text he first resorted to ''a diligent and laborious 
Collation" of the old copies. Then he collated the plays 
with their respective sources, chronicle, classic story, or 
Italian novella. If an obscurity still remained, and its 
sense could be restored by a slight alteration of the text, 
he thought the change could be made without the necessity 
of proof beyond common sense. But when it was necessary 
to take a greater liberty with the original, he was careful 
to support his emendation with parallel passages and au- 
thorities from Shakespeare, which he says, repeating the 
conviction expressed in Shakespeare Restored, was ''the 
surest Means of expounding any Author whatsoever." 
As regards the method employed in the explanatory notes, 
he held that since the obscurities in Shakespeare are due to 
the times in which he lived, the kind of writing he followed, 
and his own peculiar nature, to be able to explain the ob- 
scurities of the first class an editor must ''be well vers'd 
in the History and Manners of his Author's Age" ; to explain 
the second class he must have a wide acquaintance with the 
dramatic poets; while to explain the last he should be 
intimately acquainted with Shakespeare's style and phrase- 
ology, as well as possessing a deep insight into his genius. 

Never before had even the need of research in editing 
an English text been emphasized, to say nothing of any 
plan of procedure. Thus the preface may justly be con- 
sidered the first expression of the modern method employed 
in critical editions. Yet Theobald claimed the credit not 
of originating but only of adapting this method to a new 
field. Amplifying the opinions he had expressed in his 
first critical effort, he traces his plan to its true source : 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 173 

Shakespeare's Case has in great Measure resembled that of a cor- 
rupt Classic; and, consequently, the Method of Cure was likewise 
to bear a Resemblance. By what means, and with what Success, 
this Cure has been effected on ancient Writers, is too well known, 
and needs no formal Illustration. The Reputation consequent 
on Tasks of that Nature invited me to attempt the Method here; 
with this View, the Hopes of restoring to the Public their greatest 
Poet in his Original Purity: After having so long lain in a Condition 
that was a Disgrace to common Sense.^^ 

In the next sentence, however, Theobald lays claim to a just 
credit of originality: *'To this End I have ventured on a 
Labour, that is the first Assay of the kind on any modern 
Author whatsoever." And it was, for Pope's edition, 
whatever its intentions, must be considered a failure both 
in method and results, while Bentley's Milton cannot be 
taken seriously, though Theobald thought it necessary to 
point out that 'Hhat Great Man" was more concerned in 
showing how Milton should have written than how he did 
write, the most plausible excuse possible, but still absurd. 

Since the method was drawn from the classics, a model 
had to be derived from the same source. As would be 
expected, the editor turns to the man from whom he had 
learned so much. ''I mean to follow the form of Bentley's 
Amsterdam Horace in subjoining the notes to the place 
controverted." ^^ This plan became the standard for 
eighteenth-century editions. 

But it was not in form only that Theobald followed the 
Horace. In a previous chapter it has already been shown 
how in the critical doubt, the emendation, and the conjectural 
criticism he adopts the same attitude and employs the same 
method as the more illustrious critic. It has also been shown 
how in conjecture and explanation he marshals his evidence 

'^ Preface, p. xxxix. 

*° Letter to Warburton, November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations 
of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. 



174 LEWIS THEOBALD 

with the same logic and thoroughness. Yet one difference 
was pointed out. Bentley had command over the whole 
range of classical literature ; whether defending an emenda- 
tion, settling an historical fact, establishing a grammatical 
usage, or elucidating a metrical law, he draws his evidence 
from every conceivable source and focuses it upon the ques- 
tion in such a manner as to leave little doubt in the minds 
of his readers. Theobald, however, in his first work was 
chiefly dependent upon his knowledge of Shakespeare, upon, 
as he says, expounding an author by himself. It is true he 
occasionally resorted to Chaucer and Spenser, sometimes 
consulted the chronicles for historical facts, and made diligent 
use of the reference books at hand, yet he was not well 
versed in the literature essential to a study of Shakespeare. 

This deficiency was one of material rather than method, 
but it had to be overcome before the best results could be 
obtained. During the preparation of his edition, the lack 
was remedied by an enormous expansion in his reading 
of earlier English literature, the results of which are 
easily seen in his notes. One example is sufficient to 
show how he was searching the literature of the past, and 
to what good use he was putting his finds. Near the be- 
ginning of his correspondence with Warburton, he was 
puzzled over the phrase Basilisco like in King John; he 
could make nothing of it all. Some months later the diffi- 
culty was removed by his reading Soliman and Perseda^^ 
Had he not adopted the policy of reading the literature of 
Shakespeare's age, he must either have left the passage in 
obscurity or resorted to an unnecessary emendation. 

His wide reading is especially seen in his reference to early 
dramas and in quotations from them. In the preface he 
claims to have read over eight hundred old English plays. 

*^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 205, 256. Also 
compare pp. 358 and 518, 517 and 527. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 175 

Though this statement is a palpable exaggeration — a 
fault to which Theobald was inclined — yet there was some 
basis for it.^^ His notes prove him familiar with the works 
of Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Chapman, Heywood, Dekker, 
Marston, Webster, Ford, Beaumont and Fletcher, and 
Massinger, to say nothing of the number of anonymous 
plays he has occasion to mention. Particularly numerous 
are his references to the many plays of Jonson and Beau- 
mont and Fletcher. 

Moreover, he was a diligent reader of a different species 
of Hterature. The antiquaries Stowe, Camden, and Dugdale 
he used to good advantage. Besides the chronicles of Hall 
and Holinshed, he was familiar with such semi-historical 
works as Hakluyt's voyages. Lydgate and Caxton were 
known to him, though he seems to have been ignorant of 
Gower. With Chaucer and Spenser he was intimately 
acquainted, and, in a much less degree, with the sixteenth- 
century lyricists such as Wyatt, Surrey, Daniel, and Lodge. 
Then there was a mass of ephemeral and inconsequential 
literature from which Theobald gleaned something, as for 
example The Discovery of a London Monster, 1612. 

One result of this investigation of the literature surround- 
ing Shakespeare was the weakening of Theobald's confidence 
in the poet's learning. Several years before the appearance 
of Shakespeare Restored he had most determinedly argued 
the dramatist's direct knowledge of the classics, on the ground 
that in Troilus and Cressida the author had depended more 
on Homer than on Chaucer, and that in the plays based on 

*2 See account of Theobald's library in Lounsbury, Text of Shake- 
speare, pp. 551-553. Professor Lounsbury thinks Theobald's library 
contained "several" hundred plays. Also see The Works of Beaumont 
and Fletcher, ed. Theobald, Seward, and Sjonpson, 1750, where 
in "An Account of the Present Edition" Seward speaks of Theobald's 
valuable collection of quartos. 



176 LEWIS THEOBALD 

classic story he must have read Plutarch in the original.*^ 
Later he discovered his mistakes in reading Wynken de 
Worde's Troy story and North's Plutarch. He even took the 
field against Gildon and Pope, who produced the Comedy 
of Errors as proof of Shakespeare's Latin, and called atten- 
tion to the fact that a translation of the Menaechmi was 
extant in the poet's time."^ These discoveries, and in a 
small degree Warburton's influence, forced him to the 
conclusion that Shakespeare went to translations rather than 
to the classics themselves.'*^ Still he was not sufficiently 
shaken from his old belief to come out openly on the opposite 
side. In the notes to the various volumes of his edition 
he quotes some sixty-two passages from Latin and Greek 
writers, which, he holds, bear a resemblance to Shakespeare's 
sentiments. In his preface he claimed that these passages 
were produced, not to prove that Shakespeare consciously 
imitated the classics, but to show how happily he expressed 
the same sentiments ; yet some are introduced with the 
statement that Shakespeare must have had them in mind. 
It was easy for Theobald, whose memory was stored with 
classical lore, to see similarities in thought, and for this 
reason he did not take, as Farmer did later, a firm stand 
against Shakespeare's first-hand knowledge of ancient 
literature. 

With this increased range of observation Theobald's notes 
approached Bentley's even more closely. He called to his 
assistance not only what classical literature held, but also 
what English history and literature lent. With the same 
pertinency and the same logical handling of evidence that 
were so characteristic of his exemplar, he proved and eluci- 
dated as no one had ever done before in English studies. 

^3 See preface to his alteration of Richard II, 1721. 

** Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 3, p. 4. 

*^ Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 565. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 177 

Just as Bentley's notes, even when upholding an unwarrant- 
able correction, were notable for the instruction they con- 
tained, so one critic says that Theobald's notes ''are a mine 
of miscellaneous information, clearing up fully and once for 
all what might have remained undetected for generations." *^ 
In increasing his knowledge along the necessary lines, Theo- 
bald had removed the only fundamental dissimilarity be- 
tween the two scholars. A comparison of notes would 
easily show that the methods employed were one and the 
same, but since such a comparison has been made in the 
chapter on Shakespeare Restored, it becomes necessary 
only to point out this single improvement in Theobald's 
notes. ^^ 

The secret of this method was the insistence upon proof 
for any conclusion. It differed from previous methods 
in that there was less of random guessing, haphazard arrivals 
at conclusions from isolated points or insufficient evidence. 
A note on the first act of Macbeth furnishes an excellent 
example of the manner in which Theobald worked. In the 
old reading of this passage the witches called themselves 
''weyward sisters." The adjective struck the critic as in- 
appropriate. Unwilling to rely on his first impression, he 
investigated Shakespeare's use of the word, and proved by 
quotations from three other plays that the dramatist never 
used the adjectives in a sense suitable to the passage under 
discussion. Then his reading of Chaucer stood him in good 
stead by bringing to his mind a passage in Troilus and 
Cressida, where fortune is called ''executrice of wierds." 
In dictionaries and glossaries he sought the correct meaning 

*^ J. C. Collins, Studies and Essays, p. 279. 

*' "Mr. Theobald, who was a much better critic on Shakespeare 
than Dr. Bentley had been on Milton, yet followed the Doctor's Stile 
and Manner." Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750. Preface, 
p. Ixii. 



178 LEWIS THEOBALD 

of weird, and found it appropriate to the passage. Yet 
on this evidence alone he did not wish to insert the word. 
In the course of his wide reading he came across the story 
of Macbeth and the witches in Heyhn's Cosmography, 
where the adjective is used in reference to the hags. Still 
this was not conj&rmation sufficient. 

I presently recollected, that this Story must be recorded at more 
Length by Holinshed; with whom I thought it was very probable 
that our Author had traded for the Materials of his Tragedy: 
and therefore Confirmaton was to be fetch'd from this Fountain. 

His investigation revealed several passages in which the 
witches are called ''weird sisters." 

This is the method of the true scholar, one who loves 
'Ho go thorough-stitch" with whatever he takes in hand. 
A new procedure it was in English letters. Yet it is very 
discoverable in those passages of Bentley's Dissertation on 
Phalaris, where Boyle's statements are laid bare, and the 
author's are supported with inevitable proofs. 

It has already been hinted that the similarity between 
the Boyle-Bentley and Pope-Theobald controversies was 
not merely superficial. Pope's edition of Shakespeare and 
Boyle's edition of Phalaris were both examples of careless 
scholarship and insufficient and inexact research. On the 
other hand, just as Shakespeare Restored was a review of 
Pope's work, intended to show its defects, Bentley's first 
dissertation was secondarily a review of Boyle's edition with 
the same purpose in view. It is true that the primary object 
of the treatise was to prove Phalaris 's letters spurious, but 
after Boyle's slur at his humanity Bentley kept a close 
watch for errors in the edition.^^ The last pages of the dis- 

*8 Bentley said that had Boyle acknowledged that he had been 
mistaken concerning Bentley's conduct, "all the errors of his Edition 
had slept quiet in their obscurity." A. Dyce, Works of Richard 
Bentley, vol. 2, p. vii. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 179 

sertation are given over entirely to showing the faults of 
Boyle's work, which faults are styled only a specimen.*^ 
The famous critic is especially severe with his adversary 
because of slack collating, a charge Theobald never wearied 
of bringing against Pope. 

Furthermore, Boyle's Examination bears a close resem- 
blance to The Dunciad, for though he attempts a serious 
defense, differing therein from Pope, it is plain to see that 
Boyle's main reliance is upon banter and satire, ^^ the last 
resort of careless study exposed to the relentless attacks of 
careful scholarship. Even the accusations remind one of 
Pope's satire — pedantry, insistence on trifles, out-of-the-way 
reading. ^^ Nor did satire suffice, for Boyle's maHce went 
so far as to deal in misquotation and false statements, 
though hardly to the degree reached by Pope.^^ 

Theobald's edition and Bentley's second dissertation are, 
of course, works of different natures, but the spirit animating 
them and, in a general way, some of the methods employed 
are similar. They both represent the efforts of true scholars, 
by reliance upon fact, proof, and authority, to silence forever 
the arguments of inaccurate investigation and malicious 
satire. The authors are vitally concerned, not so much in 
gaining the victory, as in ascertaining the truth. ^^ This 
fact is seen in their readiness to admit an error in a statement 
or in a conjecture when shown to be wrong. ^ This dislike 

49 Dyce, vol. 2, pp. 173-181. 

^° I refer to all the authors of the Examination under the name of 
Boyle. 

^1 Dyce, vol. 1, pp. hii-lviii, Ixix, 84, 325. 

62 Idem, vol. 1, pp. 163, 168, 218, 266, 270, 364, 367. 

63 See Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixix, and preface to Shakespeare, p. xlix. 

" "I design nothing but a search after truth; and will never be 
guilty of that mean disingenuity, to maintain a fault that I am con- 
vinced of." Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixxiii. See also p. 97. Compare edi- 
tion of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 193. See also Appendix, p. 325, and 



180 LEWIS THEOBALD 

of error caused them both to be minutely accurate in the 
spelling of proper names, ^^ and made them insistent on the 
production of authority and proof for any conclusion or 
conjecture. ^^ 

Since the purposes of the two critics were different, it is 
not the part of reason to seek any close resemblance in 
method, yet we find isolated examples of similar treatment 
scattered throughout both works. The emendations dis- 
persed through the Dissertation are merely incidental to a 
greater object ; for this reason nothing need be said of them. 
But the chronological method, used to such good advantage 
in proving the Epistles of Phalaris spurious, appears fre- 
quently in the edition. ^^ Furthermore, the manner of pro- 
ducing evidence and the amount and widely diverse sources 
of proof are seen in the handling of detached questions. One 
example will suffice. Boyle and Pope had been so unfortu- 
nate as to fall foul of certain expressions their opponents had 
used: Boyle objected to Bentley's ''first inventor," and 
Pope to that line of the Double Falshood satirized in The 
Dundad. Never did the ridicule of two wits receive such 
a severe jar from the cold array of evidence presented against 
them. The classical scholar proceeded to give passages 

Shakespeare Restored, p. 191, where the author says, "I should reckon 
it very disingenuous, as well as ridiculous, in a Work which I have 
profess' d to have undertaken for the restoration of Shakespeare, if I 
should be asham'd to own myself mistaken, and retract the error." 

^^ See Dyce, vol. 1, pp. Ivii, Iviii. With these references compare 
edition of Shakespeare, vol. 6, p. 398, and see Pope's note at the first 
of the Dunciad, where he satirizes Theobald for his accurate spelling of 
Shakespeare's name. 

^ See Dyce, vol. 1, pp. 54, 117, and preface to Shakespeare, pp. xl, 
xliii. 

^7 Preface to Shakespeare, pp. Ix, x, and vol. 1, p. 235. See also 
Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 613, where Theobald 
demolishes one of Warbiu-ton's emendations, and p. 654, where he dis- 
cusses some points of Jonson's Life. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 181 

from Terence, Lucretius, Pindar, Herodotus, Plato, and a 
Greek inscription, while Theobald was not far behind with 
quotations from Plautus, Ovid, Seneca, Terence, Shake- 
speare, and Beaumont and Fletcher. ^^ 

So far this treatise has concerned itself mainly with 
Theobald's method and its origin. Something might be 
well said, however, regarding the results obtained. It 
would be supererogatory to speak in general terms concern- 
ing the merits of the edition ; every editor of Shakespeare 
now concedes as unquestioned the importance of Theobald's 
contribution to Shakespearean textual criticism. Yet a 
few statistics will, perhaps, make more evident the quantity 
and quality of his criticisms. ^^ 

Since Theobald easily stands at the head of all emenders of 
the text, his conjectures first come up for consideration. In 
the following count there have been considered only those 
corrections that necessitated the substitution of a word 
entirely different from the current reading, the omission of 
a word or words, or the introduction of a word or words. 
When the emendation consists only of a change in the form 
of the word or an expansion of an abbreviation, it has not 
been included in the calculation. After corrections of this 
nature are eliminated, there still remain some four hundred 
and twenty-nine emendations for which Theobald had to 
rely upon his genius and learning alone. Of these, one 
hundred and fifty have been accepted, so that a little less 
than thirty-seven per cent of his corrections have stood the 
test of time and the scrutiny of scholars. 

When consideration is paid to the large number of correc- 

^8 Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixi, and Shakespeare, vol. 4, p. 188. Compare 
also the discussion of anachronisms in Dyce, vol. 1, p. 183, and the 
edition of Shakespeare, vol. 6, p. 42, where Theobald makes use of 
Bentley's list and adds more examples of his own. 

5^ The basis of these calculations is the Globe edition of Shakes- 
peare, edited by Clark and Wright. 



182 LEWIS THEOBALD 

tions attempted and the almost total obscurity of many of the 
corrupt passages, this percentage is amazing. Certainly no 
other corrector, either in English or the classics, can boast 
such a high ratio of accepted readings. Bentley falls far 
short of the mark. Warburton, who, according to Johnson, 
supplied Theobald with the best part of his emendations, 
was successful in only thirteen per cent of those substitutions 
which Theobald saw fit to introduce into his edition. Un- 
doubtedly the percentage would be much lower, had not 
the bishop's notes passed through his friend's sifting hands, 
so that only the more probable corrections were given to 
the public. These numbered one hundred and thirty-five, 
thirty-six of which the editor refused to insert in the text. 
Theobald's judgment in rejecting, if not in selecting, his 
assistant's notes is vindicated by the fact that only one of 
the thirty-six has been accepted. Still there are some critics 
who look upon Warburton as Theobald's guardian angel, 
saving him from himself.^^ 

Besides his emendations, Theobald introduced other 
changes into the current text as represented by Pope's 
edition. In some two hundred places he restored and de- 
fended variant readings where Pope had either emended the 
text or chosen the inferior reading. In a score of places he 
rescued whole lines and even passages from the old editions. 
To these he called attention in his notes, but in one place 
he says that he has made many such restorations without 
notice. ^^ In a large number of places he restored stage 
directions, gave lines to their proper speakers, and in four 

8° See D. N. Smith op cit., p. xliv. In the correspondence between 
the two critics, for every correction of Theobald that Warburton finds 
fault with, Theobald corrects a half dozen of his friend's. 

61 "Thus is the Verse left imperfect by Mr. Rowe and Mr, Pope, 
tho' the old Copies all fill it up, as I have done. I have restored an 
infinite Number of such Passages tacitly from the first Impressions: 
but I thought proper to take notice, once for all, here that as Mr. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 183 

plays introduced new act divisions, half of which have been 
accepted.^2 His changes in punctuation are innumerable, 
ranging from the most trifling alteration to corrections that 
restore meaning to unintelhgible lines. For introducing 
notes to argue his changes correct he has been subjected to 
criticism. In a previous chapter attention has been called 
to his following Bentley in this respect, and if another excuse 
is needed, he can furnish it himself. In Shakespeare Re- 
stored he had stigmatized as mere drudgery corrections in 
which there was no pleasure nor any merit except that of 
diligence.^^ In his edition he is somewhat of the same 
mind, for he says he would willingly spare himself the trouble 
of making notes on mere changes in punctuation, did he not 
fear that printers, not having their attention fixed on the 
passage by a note, would revert back to the old corrupt 
pointing.^^ 

Theobald believed that while the establishing of the 
genuine text was the first duty of an editor, it also devolved 
upon him to clear up obscure and difficult passages by ex- 
planatory notes. Especially was explanation necessary 
in an age when the tendency was to alter what could not be 
understood. The number of such notes in his edition 
amounts to well over two hundred, nearly forty of which 
Warburton supplied. They vary in nature. Some explain 
the meaning of words by parallel passages ; some clear up 
a difficulty by showing the peculiarities of Shakespeare's 
usage. Many allusions are traced to their sources in con- 
Pope follows Mr. Rowe's Edition in his Errors and Omissions, it gives 
great Suspicion, notwithstanding the pretended Collation of Copies, 
that Mr. Pope, for the Generality, took Mr. Rowe's Edition as his 
guide." Vol. 1, p. 384. 

^2 Love's Labor's Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, King John, and 
King Henry V. 

*' Introduction, p. vi. 

^ Preface, p. xlvi. 



184 LEWIS THEOBALD 

temporary literature and history , while many obscure passages 
are explained by going to the source from which Shake- 
speare got his material. These explanatory notes reveal, 
perhaps even more than his emendations, Theobald's wide 
reading and diUgent research in the literature of his author's 
age. 

In his analysis of the science of criticism the editor grants 
a minor place to '^an Inquiry into the Beauties and Defects 
of Composition." He admits that his work has little to do 
with this branch of criticism, though in a number of emenda- 
tions he had to consider it. There are a few notes given 
entirely to blame or praise, but the amount of aesthetic 
criticism is, as we should expect of a man of Theobald's 
nature, small and inconsequential. Most of these notes 
are by Warburton; for he prided himself on his critical 
faculties in such matters, and his friend was only too quick to 
foster his delusion. 

Not only in those particulars that most closely concern 
an editor was Theobald interested ; unlike previous editors, 
he showed a curiosity in that threefold field of research 
that has since engaged the activities of so many scholars — 
the chronology, authorship, and sources of the plays ascribed 
to Shakespeare. While never directly undertaking any of 
these problems, he was careful to note any point in his 
research that might throw light upon them. Some of his 
deductions are made from insufficient evidence, while for 
many of his opinions he gives no reason ; yet one cannot 
but be struck by his approximation to the present results 
of long and careful research. 

He did not date definitely any of the plays. Relying 
upon external evidence, he placed Timon of Athens before 
Elizabeth's death, because, not knowing of a previous play 
by a similar name, he thought Shakespeare's tragedy was 
hinted at in a production issued in 1601, Jack Drum's Enter- 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 185 

tainment.^^ He dated Henry V before 1598 on the ground 
that in Every Man in his Humour, produced in this year, 
Jonson ridiculed a passage in the chorus following the first 
act.^^ Relying on internal evidence, he thought Othello 
could not have been written before 1597 because the tragedy 
takes some matter from Sir Walter Raleigh's Travels.^'' 
The tragedy Macbeth was placed after Queen Ehzabeth's 
death by reason of its containing compliments to James I, 
while Henry VIII ^^ was attributed to Elizabeth's reign 
because the queen is complimented in it. As regards this 
last play, the editor thought the compliment to James I 
was inserted after the monarch's accession to the throne. 
Relying upon both external and internal evidence, he placed 
the date of The Tempest between 1610 and 1613 ; the first 
date because the drama contains references to the Bermudas, 
visited in 1609 by Sir John Sommers; the second date 
because Shakespeare had by that time retired from the 
stage.^^ The Merry Wives was dated after 1598 by virtue 
of a reference to the Guiana of Raleigh's Travels, and 
not later than 1602, for Theobald possessed a quarto of that 
date.^^ Of course, in some of these conclusions he was beside 
the mark, yet in a number he comes reasonably close. 

As regards the authorship of some of the doubtful plays, 
Theobald stated opinions that curiously enough coincide with 
many of the conclusions of modern scholarship. He followed 
Pope in omitting Pericles and the six other plays introduced 
into the third folio, yet he was far from the opinion that 
the first was not indebted to Shakespeare's pen. He held 
it ''was not entirely of our Author's penning, but he has 

^^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. 

^® Idem. vol. 4, p. 19. 

" Idem, vol. 7, p. 393. 

68 Idem, vol. 5, pp. 39 and 443. 

6^ Idem, Preface, p. x. 

'0 Idem, vol. 1, p. 235. Also see Appendix C, p. 282. 



186 LEWIS THEOBALD 

honour' d it with a Number of Master-Touches, so peculiar 
to himself, that a knowing Reader may with Ease and 
Certainty distinguish the Traces of his Pencil." ^^ In another 
place he says, ''some Part of it is certainly of his [Shake- 
speare's] writing." '^ Theobald was too timid to defy the 
precedent set by Pope in rejecting the tragedy, yet it seems 
probable that at one time he was considering its inclusion 
in his edition.^3 Theobald also declared his behef in Shake- 
speare's part-authorship of another play in which many 
scholars to-day see evidences of the great dramatist, The 
Two Noble Kinsmen, which he called Fletcher's, though he 
was of the opinion that in the writing of the play "Shake- 
speare assisted ; and indeed his workmanship is very dis- 
coverable in a number of places." "^^ 

Of some of the plays included in Pope's and his own edi- 
tions he denied Shakespeare complete authorship. His 
opinion of Titus Andronicus was, indeed, very low.^^ He 
inclined to the theory that there was an old play by that 
name, which Shakespeare retouched. For proof he cited 
a passage in the introduction of Bartholomew Fair, 1614, 
where Jonson speaks of an Andronicus of about thirty years 
of age."^^ Pointing out a number of Shakespeare's historical 
mistakes in the three parts of Henry VI, he maintained that 
the dramas were brought to Shakespeare and merely re- 
touched by him." Nor was Theobald guided by external 
evidence alone ; he did not hesitate to apply aesthetic tests. 

^1 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 490. 

72 Idem, vol. 4, p. 20. 

'3 Theobald sent Warburton a copy of Pericles, with the injunction 
to look over it with a strict eye. See his letter of May 20, 1730. Ap- 
pendix C. 

7* Idem, vol. 2, p. 623. 

" Idem, vol. 2, p. 512. 

" Idem, vol. 5, p. 307. 

" Idem, vol. 4, p. 109. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 187 

He says the diction of Andronicus is beneath that of the 
three parts of Henry VI, which he says is "more obsolete, and 
the Numbers more mean and prosaical, than in the Generahty 
of his genuine Compositions." 

Little fault can be found with these opinions. Had 
Theobald's life been less fraught with adversities, and had 
he received more encouragement in this field of investigation, 
perhaps he would have established his opinions on firmer 
grounds. Double Falshood was the only play the author- 
ship of which he ever intended to settle. From this task 
he was deterred, so he says, by the town's accepting the 
play as Shakespeare's. The more probable reason, however, 
was that, with his keen sensitiveness to Shakespeare's style, 
he could discover no traces of the dramatist. 

However, Theobald's main contribution, after his work 
on the text, to the wide field of Shakespearean research 
lies in his discovery of sources. In the preface he speaks 
of having read over the chronicles of Hall and Holinshed, 
as well as the Italian stories and those hves of Plutarch 
upon which some of the plays were founded. He was the 
first to discover how closely Shakespeare followed Holin- 
shed.'^^ He also was the first to point out Whetstone's 
Promus and Cassandra as the source of Measure for Measure, 
at the same time asserting that he could prove his point, 
but, as was too often the case, he left his task unfinished.'^ 
He discovered a copy of the old Leir,^^ and designated the 
Historia Danica of Saxo Grammaticus as the original source 
of the Hamlet story. Early in the preparation of his edition 

^8 See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 398. 

^^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 398. See also Appendix, 
p. 281. The age had placed such a great value upon textual criticism 
that research in other fields was considered much less important than 
it deserved. Only in the latter half of the century were such questions 
investigated. 

8° Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 217. 



188 LEWIS THEOBALD 

he perceived the indebtedness of Troilus and Cressida to 
Wynkin de Worde, which in a letter to Warburton, he proved 
by showing agreement in a number of details. ^^ Finally, 
in various places he pointed out small debts to sources 
such as for the grave-digger's song in Hamlet. 

Yet seldom has a man been so deprived of the credit for 
discoveries; in some cases the theft has come down un- 
detected to the present. One scholar, to whom I have had 
occasion to refer before, praises Johnson in this fashion : 

It is especially remarkable that Johnson, who is not considered 
to have been very strong in research, should be the first to state 
that Shakespeare used North's translation of Plutarch. He is 
the first also to point out that there was an English translation 
of the play on which the Comedy of Errors was founded, and the 
first to show that it was not necessary to go back to the Tale of 
Gamely n for the story of ^s You Like It. There is no evidence 
how he came by this knowledge. The casual and allusive manner 
in which he advances his information would seem to show that 
it was not of his own getting. ^^ 

Mr. Smith thinks the informant might have been Farmer. 
About the only correct detail in the above quotation is the 
suspicion that Johnson's knowledge was second-hand, as 
will be shown. 

There is plenty of evidence how Boswell's hero came by 
his information: 'Hhe casual and allusive manner" shows, 
as Kenrick said, that ''though Dr. Johnson hath made very 
few discoveries of his own, he hath discovered the method 
of making more of Theobald's at second hand, than ever 
the author could do when they were spick and span new." ^ 
In a note on Timon's epitaph Theobald says, 

" Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol, 2, p. 611. 
*2 D. N. Smith, op. cit., p. xxv. 

83 A Review of Doctor Johnson's New Edition of Shakespeare by W, 
Kenrick, 1765. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 189 

I once imagined that Shakespeare might possibly have cor- 
rected this translator's Blunder from his own acquaintance with 
the Greek Original: but, I find, he has transcribed the four Lines 
from an old English Version of Plutarch, extant in his time.^"* 

In the very first note on the very first page of volume three, 
Theobald remarks that 'Hhe Menaechmi of Plautus was 
translated in English, (which our Cri ticks might have known 
from Langbaine,) and printed in Quarto in the year 1515, 
half a century before our Author was born." ^^ In the pref- 
ace to his edition, while speaking of the verses in ^s You 
Like It, Theobald says, 

Dr. Thomas Lodge, a Physician who flourished early in Queen 
EUzabeth's Reign, and was a great Writer of the Pastoral Songs 
and Madrigals, which were so much the Strain of those Times, 
composed a whole Volume of Poems in Praise of his Mistress, 
whom he calls Rosalinde. I never yet could meet with this col- 
lection; but whenever I do, I am persuaded I shall find many of 
our Author's Canzonets on this Subject to be scraps of the Doctor's 
amorous Muse.^^ 

Fortunately for Johnson, Theobald did not succeed in his 
search for Lodge's Rosalinde, while the later critic, following 
the path so clearly pointed out by the man he slandered, 
met with success. 

Notwithstanding the value of Theobald's contribution 
to the correcting and illustrating of Shakespeare's text, 
his edition has its faults. These defects Professor Louns- 
bury has clearly stated. ^^ Some were due to personal 

^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. See also Nichols, Illus- 
trations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 500, 505, 508. 

85 The itahcs in both quotations are Theobald's. Theobald made 
a mistake in the date; it should be 1595. 

8^ Preface, p. xvii. Theobald was mistaken in the nature of the 
work, but not in the matter of indebtedness. For this fact, as well 
as for much other information, Theobald was indebted to Langbaine. 

»7 Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XXIV. 



190 LEWIS THEOBALD 

whim, such as the failure to number scenes. Others were 
occasioned by the eccentricities of the times in which he 
Uved. These are chiefly the. tendency to emend too much 
and the proneness to show erudition. Bentley, guilty of 
both, had set the fashion for his age. When compared with 
many of the scholars of his time, Theobald appears con- 
servative in his conjectures and modest in his citations. 
His willingness to emend, however, caused him in some cases 
to miss the obvious meanings of passages, and in others 
to make good his lack of knowledge by conjecture. What 
might be called another blemish in his work was his treat- 
ment of Pope. Again and again he drags in the unfortunate 
editor to sneer at his incompetency and expose his careless- 
ness. This practice was deprecated by his admirers, and 
denounced by his critics, though not till sometime after 
Pope's death. The living generation knew how great the 
provocation had been, and that this was the only way the 
abused man had of quitting scores. Later generations were 
prone to forget the sequence of events, even to such an extent 
as to consider the edition some justification for The Dunciad! 
When the causes of the two men are compared, there ap- 
pears more justification for the notes than for the satire. 
Furthermore, Theobald's accusations were almost as uni- 
versally true as Pope's were false. 

The most reprehensible defect in the edition was the tacit 
adoption of many of Pope's metrical emendations.^^ The 
poet had sought to improve Shakespeare's versification by 
reducing the lines to eighteenth-century regularity. In the 
majority of cases Theobald followed him, although knowing, 
and indeed stating, some of the peculiarities of Shakespeare's 
verse and pronunciation, as well as reproving Pope for his 
ignorance of these peculiarities and his attempt to make 
the verse smooth. The adoption of the changes was a dis- 
*8 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 527 ff. 



THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 191 

tinct injury to the text and the neglect in acknowledg- 
ing them no credit to his character. The only defense 
that can be pleaded in his behalf is that Pope's second 
edition was the basis of his own.^^ Thus the later editor, 
not meaning to be dishonest, may have thought it neces- 
sary to specify only where he had departed from the text 
that was in the possession of the public. The ethical obli- 
gation of giving every man his due was not generally 
recognized then, but Theobald has suffered more on this 
account than Pope or any other editor. 

The faults of Theobald's edition seem trivial when com- 
pared with the difficulties he encountered. His study was 
hampered by the misfortunes and hardships with which 
his life was beset. The aids to research were few and 
scattered. As there were no large libraries where material 
could be found, he had to rely upon his friends and the 
booksellers for the accumulation of an apparatus criticus. 
Dictionaries and books of reference were both few and 
unreliable, while there was little previous research from which 
to obtain aid. Though he had the advantage of being the 
first to enter an almost unexplored field, yet he had not the 
advantage of approaching the text with that wealth of sym- 
pathetic intelligence that centuries of study have given to 
modern scholars. The great difficulty, however, lay in 
finding a method. As scholarly methods had not been 
employed on England's literature, he was forced to adapt 
to an English text the method employed by Bentley in the 

^^ Mr. Sidney Lee {Life of William Shakespeare, 1904, p. 316) is 
wrong in thinking Theobald based his edition on the first folio. Theo- 
bald introduced into the current text so many readings from this folio 
as to give some reason for the belief. Writing to Warburton in Novem- 
ber, 1731, the editor says, "Tonson has sent me in a Shakespeare inter- 
leav'd; and I am now extracting such Notes and Emendations, as 
upon maturest Deliberation, I am certain will stand the test." See 
Appendix, p. 280. 



192 LEWIS THEOBALD 

classics. ^^ This duty he performed so effectively that he 
blazed the trail succeeding editors have always followed. 

8° Old English scholarship flowed in a channel entirely separate 
from that of the scholarship devoted to editing later English classics. 
In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries it was con- 
cerned with the collating and printing of manuscripts, the compilation 
of dictionaries, grammars, and catalogues, with the material where- 
with an editor works. While Junius stands out as a great figure, his 
practices were not adopted. Manuscripts were still largely a matter 
of antiquarian interest, and in the eighteenth century men hke Hearne 
were still more eager to pubhsh editions than to publish accurate 
editions. They were more interested in showing their curious reUcs 
than in correcting or illustrating them. While antiquarians in general 
were of great service to the editors of the eighteenth century, Anglo- 
Saxon scholarship had developed no method of editing that exerted 
the sUghtest influence upon the editions of later writers. Interest 
in Old English rapidly declined during the eighteenth century, not, as 
Miss Adams affirms, because the period tended to social expression 
rather than minute scholarship — witness the many editions and critical 
treatises — but because the period was too much absorbed with more 
modern writers. See E. N. Adams, Old English Scholarship in England 
from 1566-1800, Yale Studies in English LV, 1917, pp. 70, 74, 83, 94, 
97, 103, 108. 



CHAPTER VI 
Theobald's later life 

In his edition of Shakespeare Theobald had vindicated 
himself against Pope. It was not, however, with a feeling 
of complacency that he faced the future. Confident though 
he was of the worth of his labors, he could not but feel 
uneasy about the attacks that might follow. The eight 
years intervening between his first and last works on Shake- 
speare had seen Pope tireless in his underhanded attempts 
to injure the scholar, with the result that the latter justly 
expected his edition, with its repeated sneers at the satirist, 
to bring further trouble to his door. With such fears in 
mind the editor wrote Warburton that when the cynics 
began to bark, it would be necessary for the two critics to 
look to their shelters and to marshal their forces for the 
spring campaign which he felt sure would be directed against 
him. 

But these attacks never materialized. For once Pope 
realized that silence would do him more good than satire. 
With the memory of how little his efforts had injured 
Theobald's interest ^ and with the consciousness of the 

^ The futility of Pope's satire in this respect is readily seen in the 
long list of subscribers prefixed to Theobald's edition. It contained 
the names of the most illustrious of England's nobility. The Uterary 
world was represented by Colley Gibber, Theophilus Gibber, Henry 
Fielding, Lady Mary Wortley Montague, Samuel Richardson, James 
Thomson, and Edward Young. Among the scientists and antiquaries 
were Martin Folkes, John Friend, Richard Mead, Thomas Baker, and 
Sir Hans Sloane. Glassical scholarship made a brave showing with 
the names of Richard Bentley, Thomas Bentley, John Davies, Nicholas 
Hardinge, Styvan Thirlby, John Taylor, and John Upton. 



194 LEWIS THEOBALD 

severe strains he had been put to in misquoting and mis- 
representing his opponent, he could not but feel that he 
had made a very poor showing in the controversy, and that 
for the future he could hardly hope to prevail upon the 
public against their own judgment.^ The Grub-street Journal 
did contain one or two attacks early in the year, but even 
that filthy periodical was soon forced to restrain its abuse. ^ 
So effectively had Theobald closed the mouths of his enemies 
that nearly four months after his edition had been made 
public, he could say that he had seen nothing written against 
it, save one ''idle invective." 

Instead of attacks, his edition met with approval on all 
sides. Warburton was one of the first to congratulate him : 
''I rejoice heartily in your good fortune, and am glad to 
find the town in a disposition to do you justice." ^ Later 
he sent his friend thirteen notes, which, he said, indicated 
all he could find to cavil at.^ Lord Orrery, in appreciation 
of the honor shown him in the dedication, presented the 
editor with a hundred guineas, while the Prince of Wales 
paid twenty guineas for his set. In May a benefit play 
was given him as editor of Shakespeare, for the entertain- 
ment of the Grand Master and Society of Free-Masons. 

2 Pope was angry enough; he was "extremely nettled with Mr. 
Theobald for publishing Shakespeare, and animadverting upon the 
said Pope, and Mr. Pope, as I find, in defense of himself, uses nothing 
but scurrility and the most indecent unbecoming language agreeable 
to his pride." Reliquiae Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 142. 

3 No. 219, March 7, 1734, and No. 220, March 14, 1734. See 
Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 446-447. The first article was 
written in answer to Theobald's fling at Mallet, and was signed by that 
gentleman. The other was anonymous, and must have been the 
invective to which Theobald refers. There is no evidence that Pope 
had a hand in either. 

^ Letter of May 17, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literaturey 
vol. 2, p. 634. 

6 Letter of June 20, 1734, Idem, vol. 2, p. 645. 



195 

The public was fully aware of the excellence of the work, 
and did not hesitate to voice its approval. Nothing but 
praise reached Theobald's ears, and his reputation was 
firmly established for many years to come.^ 

As soon as Shakespeare's plays were off his hands, the 
editor turned to other labors both classical and English. 
When Bentley's edition of Milton appeared, it had in- 
spired him to send some textual remarks on the poet to 
Warburton. His investigations were now carried farther. 
One passage in Lycidas — a favorite poem with Theobald — 
contained an allusion of which the scholar could make 
nothing. The Unes read, 

" Sleep'st by the fable of Bellerus old 
Where the great vision of the guarded mount 
Looks towards Namancos and Bayona's hold." 

Not being content to pass over the passage in ignorance, he 
wrote Warburton for information regarding the proper 
names. The latter replied most dogmatically that the ex- 
planation would be found in Sir James Ware's Antiquities 
and History of Ireland. Theobald immediately consulted 
this authority and, as was his wont, several others, but to 
no avail. When Warburton was notified that his reference 
was wrong, he replied that judging by the circumstances he 
had thought the allusion was to an old Irish fable, and ''that 
is all I know." ^ It would be hard to find a clearer example 
of the contrasting spirits that animated the scholarship of 
the two men. One is willing to jump at a conclusion, and 
state that conclusion as a fact ; the other exhausts every 
means at hand to clear up an obscurity, and refuses to be 
satisfied until he can find authority for an explanation. 
This inquiry is typical of the widening of his scholarly 

« Letter of May 9, 1734. Appendix C. 

' See Appendix, p. 328, and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 
2, pp. 634, 645. 



196 LEWIS THEOBALD 

interest in English literature. As will be seen later, he was 
carrying on his investigation in other native poets. Yet 
he was not entirely through with Shakespeare. In the sum- 
mer of 1734 he told Warburton that he was '^ prepared to 
put out an Edition of Shakespeare's Poems with a copious 
Glossary to all his Works." ^ The poems never appeared, 
though in October of the following year, Theobald wrote 
Warburton that 

As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means dropt, only 
deferr'd to Spring, when that and Aeschylus, I hope in God, shall 
Both appear; and an Act be obtain'd to preserve the property 
of Them together with That of more valuable Productions.^ 

The failure to obtain this act may account for the suppression 
of the undertaking. 

Though prompted by personal considerations, Theobald's 
effort to secure a copyright law was most praiseworthy. 
The statute of Queen Anne, probably written by Swift, 
gave the sole right to authors or assigns to publish books 
already printed for twenty-one years from April 10, 1710, 
when the statute went into effect. For books that had 
never been printed the time was limited to fourteen years 
with the possibility of a renewal for an equal length of time. 
When the first twenty-one years expired, numerous lawsuits 
arose over the question whether the statute took away 

8 See letter of August 27, 1734. Appendix C. One emendation, 
on the thirteenth stanza of Venus and Adonis, he sent to his friend. 
Theobald's copy read, 

''Being Red, she loves him best; and being white 
Her Breast is better'd with a more delight." 
After arguing very convincingly against this reading, he recommended 
"fetter'd" for "better'd" and supported the change with an impos- 
ing array of quotations from the classics. He was right in suspecting 
a corruption, but hit upon the wrong word. Warburton, disagreeing 
with this correction, advocated "o'er deUght" for "more delight." 

9 Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C. 



Theobald's later life 197 

common law rights. After much debate the question was 
not settled until the latter part of the century. In 1734 
the copyright was extended to prints and engravings. 

Perhaps the interest created by these lawsuits inspired 
Theobald to seek an extension of the copyright. In April 
of 1735 he wrote to Warburton: 

I don't know whether you have heard what pains I am taking to 
carry thro' a Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and securing 
of Property in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro', unless my 
Application is cut short by an abrupt Rising of the Houses.^ ° 
Two months later he was forced to acknowledge his failure 
to get the bill through the House of Lords, but showed de- 
termination to persist in the effort. ^^ Later he expressed 
the hope that the act would be obtained in the spring of the 
following year, but nothing came of the undertaking.^^ 
Though there is no direct evidence of the nature of the bill, 
Theobald's phrase ''for the advancement of learning" 
and his desire to protect his translation of Aeschylus and 

10 Letter of April 26, 1735. Appendix C. 

11 Letter of June 24, 1735. Appendix C. 

12 It was probably Theobald's interest in this field that first turned 
Warburton's mind in the same direction. "It would be unjust to quit 
Warburton without drawing attention to one or two instances in 
which his vigor was not employed in the maintenance of a paradox. 
At a time when copyright was generally regarded as a legal monopoly, 
he argued the natural right of an author in the produce of his mind." 
Mark Pattison, Essays, vol. 2, p. 174. Warburton's pamphlets on the 
subject number three: A Letter from an Author to a Member of Parlia- 
ment concerning Literary Property, 1747; An Inquiry into the Nature 
and Origin of Literary Property, 1762; and A Vindication of the Exclu- 
sive Right of Authors to their own Works, 1762. The first and last 
works argue an author's natural right in his productions, but the 
second takes the opposite view, and was evidently written to afford 
the bishop an opportunity of answering it. The last effort calls the 
authors of the previous pamphlets shrewd, ingenious, learned, a fact 
which bespeaks the authorship of all three, even though they appeared 
anonymously. 



198 LEWIS THEOBALD 

edition of Shakespeare's poems seem to indicate that he 
wished copyright extended to the productions of scholar- 
ship. 

While the critic must have relied chiefly upon the influence 
of his patron, Lord Orrery, his hopefulness of carrjdng 
through such legislation is plainly indicative of his prestige. 
His letters written at this time also show that his edition 
had entirely removed any stigma that might have been 
incurred from The Dunciad, and that he occupied a favorable 
position in the eyes of the pubhc. He was closely associated 
with Lord Orrery, being constantly engaged in legal work 
for his lordship. Again, his frequent mention of Sir Robert 
Walpole shows him to have been on terms of some intimacy 
with the prime minister, who unfortunately never succeeded 
in giving him any substantial aid. All in all, the years 
immediately following his edition were the brightest of his 
career. 

This period also marks a renewal of his interest in the 
classics. Indeed, he seems always to have looked to them 
for a substantial reputation. He was never quite sure of 
the honor to be derived from scholarship in English letters. 
Although it was his success in Shakespearean criticism that 
encouraged him to try his hand at the classics, he was not 
fully confident of the dignity of the innovation. 

His first work in classical criticism was the notes he sup- 
plied to Cooke's Hesiod. The majority of his classical 
observations, however, were contained in three papers 
contributed to Jortin's Miscellaneous Observations, 173L 
In writing for this periodical Theobald joined the ranks of 
such scholars as Pearce, Masson, Taylor, Wasse, Robinson, 
Upton, Thirlby, names that occupy a substantial place 
in the history of classical scholarship. Jortin, a scholar 
of no mean ability, complimented Theobald's first article, 
expressing the hope that 'Hhe Gentleman, to whom I am 



THEOBALD *S LATER LIFE 199 

indebted for this, will give me opportunities of obliging the 
Public with more of his observations." ^^ In his articles 
the Shakespearean scholar covered a very broad field, 
commenting on such writers as Eustathius, Athenaeus, 
Suidas, Statius, Aristophanes, schoUast on Aristophanes, 
Hesychius, Aeschylus, scholiast on Aeschylus, Paterculus, 
Strabo, Anacreon, and Platonius. In regard to this last 
writer, it was Theobald's intention at one time to contribute 
to Jortin's magazine a translation of the fragment on the 
difference between the old and middle comedy of the Greeks, 
but he did not carry out his purpose. The principal fault 
with most of Theobald's emendations is that they are un- 
necessary, a criticism that applies to the corrections of all 
the scholars of the day. Yet never are they absurd. He 
studies the passage closely, gives fully his reasons for believ- 
ing a correction necessary, and supports his reading with 
evidence gathered from wide sources. ^^ 

Mention has already been made of the emendations in- 
troduced in the notes and inserted in the preface of Theo- 
bald's edition of Shakespeare. The latter comprise, besides 
several corrections on Platonius and attempted rectifications 
of the opinions of earlier scholars, emendations on three 
Greek inscriptions published by Sir George Wheler in 1728. 
In one of these our scholar made his most ambitious correc- 
tion. The inscription styled the ''Votive Table" by Theo- 
bald had been considered the prayer of a heathen to Zeus 
Urius in gratitude for a prosperous voyage. With the help 
of his conjectures the unfortunate critic made it the prayer 
of a Christian to the Almighty. Less than two months 

^3 Miscellaneous Observations, vol. 1, p. 144. 

^^ In some cases it is almost impossible not to agree with his emen- 
dation (see Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 582), while 
in at least one instance his correction has been accepted: a.a4>a\ks for 
d(r</>aXcos, 1. 85 of Aeschylus' Suppliants. 



200 LEWIS THEOBALD 

after the new interpretation had been made pubHc, its author 
wrote Warburton, 

I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you. The major part 
of them, I beUeve, will stand their ground. But in one of them I 
have been most miserably mistaken: I mean miserably, as not 
knowing a Fact; as a SchoUar and Conjecturer at large, I think 
the mistake will not affect me in Credit. It is the Votive Table, 
as I called it, which led me into the Error.^^ 

Two months later an anonymous contribution to The Grub- 
street Journal, after calling Theobald undoubtedly the first 
English critic, attacked the propriety of introducing classical 
criticism in an edition of Shakespeare, and took pains to 
show that this particular emendation was wrong.^^ The 
critic pointed out that Theobald's mistake was due to his ig- 
norance of a more correct copy of the inscription by Mon- 
sieur Spon, a fellow-traveler of Sir George. 

Theobald was naturally surprised that an article so fair 
to himself should have been printed in a periodical so ve- 
hemently hostile. Although a little wary of the apparent 
compliment, he made a reply in a later issue of the same 
paper, in which he readily admitted his error in correcting 
the manuscript, the corruption of which was due to Wheler's 
inaccurate copy, and gave reasons why he had happened to 
overlook the previous publication of the fragment. ^'^ Then 
he added the perfectly true statement that he had discovered 
his own error several months before his critic had attacked 
it. But he turned the tables on the latter by giving him a 
full history of the inscription, of which his opponent was 
ignorant, and by informing him that the inscription itself 

15 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 
g 16 No. 229, May 16, 1734. 

" No. 3, June 6, 1734. In the same issue one of the editors, 
signing himself Baevius, when forced to acknowledge the truth of 
Theobald's case, contented himself with dragging in a trivial point 
utterly foreign to the discussion. 



Theobald's later life 201 

was in Dr. Mead's museum, where the writer had made a 
collation which proved both of them wrong. Few could 
get ahead of Theobald in a matter of research. 

The classical writer in whom the Shakespearean scholar 
was most interested was, as we have already seen, Aeschylus. 
As early as 1714 he had contracted with Lintot to translate 
all seven tragedies. Although it is probable that he per- 
formed his task, nothing came of the contract. Later he 
issued proposals for subscriptions to his translation, but 
still it did not appear, and in the notes to The Dunciad Pope 
sarcastically remarked on his failure to fulfill his obligation. 
Yet Theobald never dropped his design. In February 
following the appearance of his Shakespeare he was receiving 
subscriptions for the undertaking and promising to print it 
off the following summer.^^ Furthermore he began to cherish 
designs for an edition as well as a translation of Aeschy- 
lus. When Warburton raised some question regarding the 
text of the dramatist, and gave his usual advice, Theobald 
replied that Stanley's text, although the best, was by no 
means perfect, and that there remained much to be done in 
adjusting the meter of strophe and antistrophe by a principle 
that he considered a most certain basis for correction.^^ 
He continued his work on the text throughout the summer 
and communicated some of his emendations to War burton. ^^ 
In the autumn of the same year he wrote Sir Hans Sloane 
for a subscription to the work which he said he then had 
under the press, and which he described as ''a Translation of 
Aeschylus's Tragedies, with Notes Critical and Philological ; 
and an History of the Greek Stage in all its Branches, in a 
Dissertation to be prefixed." 21 He added further that he 

18 Letter of February 12, 1734. Appendix C. 

19 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 

20 Letter of July 11, 1734. Appendix C. 

21 Letter of September 21, 1734. Appendix C. 



202 LEWIS THEOBALD 

had been advised by some friends to publish the Greek 
text on the opposite page, and repeated the statement made 
to Warburton about the certainty of corrections made on 
the basis of meter. He claimed to have by the kindness of 
Dr. Conyers Middleton a collation of the famous Laurentian 
manuscript, which he offered to send to Sir Hans if it was 
desired. 

Neither text nor translation appeared, but his emendations 
have not been entirely lost. Those remarks that had been 
published in Miscellaneous Observations, and some others 
that were written on the margin of Theobald's copy of the 
Greek dramatist, were used by Bloomfield in his edition 
of Aeschylus, 1810, a fact that is evidence enough of the 
respectable quality of the earlier critic's work in the classics.^^ 
Furthermore, Middleton 's enlisting in his service testifies 
to the high regard in which his scholarship was held by 
contemporaries. 

But there is still more remarkable evidence of the study 
Theobald put upon Greek. In October of 1735 he tells 
Warburton that, 

as, I think I mention'd to you, that I was prepared to amend and 
account for above 20 thousand Passages in Hesychius, I am la- 
bouring hard to draw out those Stores, that they may not be quite 
lost, in case I myself should be snatch'd away. It is very odd, 
what a great number of Places I shall be able to set right, that are 
corrupt, Both by Explanations being divided from their Themes; 
and by Themes, as mistakenly sunk, and standing as Explana- 
tions of what they have, indeed, no Reference to. I could give 
you an ample Specimen; but, perhaps, you trade very little with 
that Author.23 

22 In the "Index Codicum Manuscriptorum quorum lectiones ad- 
hibui" appears this item : "L. L. Ludovici Theobaldi notae, ad margi- 
nem libri Windhamiani scriptae. Harum ipse nonnullos vulgavit in 
Miscell. Obs. II. p. 164." 

23 Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C. 



203 

Although these ''20 thousand passages" probably take their 
place by the side of the two thousand emendations of Beau- 
mont and Fletcher and the eight hundred old English plays, 
yet when all due allowance is made for Theobald's proneness 
to exaggerate, the unusual extent of his investigation is 
still striking. Furthermore, he had hit upon a work that 
offered a wide field for conjecture. Bentley is said to have 
undertaken 'Hhe stupendous task" of publishing a complete 
edition of Hesychius, ''an author in whom he professes 
to have made upwards of five thousand corrections" ; ^'^ and 
at the beginning of the next century Porson expressed sur- 
prise that after so many first rate critics had worked on 
the lexicographer, so much room for emendation was still 
left. 2^ Had his work on Aeschylus and Hesychius been put 
before the public, the editor of Shakespeare would have 
occupied a creditable position among the classical scholars 
of the eighteenth century. 

The history of the two years following the edition of Shake- 
speare clearly discounts the influence of The Dunciad in either 
discouraging its hero from undertaking any enterprise, or 
in lessening the estimation in which the discerning part of 
the public held him. These years mark the most active and 
ambitious portion of his life. His designs in both English 
and the classics reached an extent little dreamed of in his 
younger days. Nor would he have entered upon such plans, 
had not the favor of the public seemed probable to him. 

In the midst of his ambitious projects there came what 
must have been a grievous disappointment and a real injury. 
Revealing at last his true nature, Warburton broke off the 
friendship under circumstances by no means creditable to 

2* Hartley Coleridge, The Worthies of Yorkshire and Lancashire, 
1836, p. 71. 

26 Museum Criticum; or Cambridge Classical Researches, 1814, 
vol. 1, p. 122. 



204 LEWIS THEOBALD 

the divine. While Theobald did not stand in any need of 
Warburton's critical aid, he was a man of little self-reliance, 
and that little had been rudely shaken by Pope. No one 
reading the correspondence between the two men can fail 
to be struck by the way the elder leaned upon the younger 
for encouragement and approval. The shock of having 
this prop removed must have done much toward weakening 
his perseverance and increasing a despondency evident at 
times in previous years. In the disruption of the friendship 
may lie the cause why all save one of his various designs 
were never carried out. 

Evidence that Warburton was not entirely pleased with 
his fellow critic appears early in the correspondence. In 
the fall of 1730 the former remarked on the latter' s dis- 
approval of many of his notes, and proposed to restrain his 
criticism. To the implied complaint Theobald answered, 

I would by no means wish you to restrain your genius, or the 
scope of your suspicions, so long as you are pleased to indulge 
me in such a labour; for, though every conjecture should not upon 
trial prove standard, give me leave to say, without flattery, there 
is something so extremely ingenious in all you start, that I would 
with great regret be defrauded of such a fund either of entertain- 
ment or erudition. 2^ 

It is hard to see how any critic could find fault with dis- 
agreement when couched in such flattering terms. And 
the above quotation is typical of the judgment Theobald 
frequently passed on the other's learning. Because of such 
undue praise he was able to preserve the partnership for 
a number of years. 

When the edition of Shakespeare appeared, Warburton 
at once noticed that some of his remarks had been omitted. 
To this omission he called the editor's attention, lajdng the 

26 Letter of September 15, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 607. 



Theobald's later life 205 

blame upon his own loose unmethodical papers, and then 
added, seemingly as a threat, that he intended to compose 
a complete critique on Shakespeare. Theobald explained 
the omission on the ground that he foresaw that opportunities 
to improve on Shakespeare would arise ; therefore it would 
be neither fraud nor bad pohcy to keep a good fund of notes 
in reserve. But he was clearly concerned over the other's 
threat. This concern prompted him to express the unwar- 
rantable inference that his acknowledgment of his assistant's 
aid in the edition ''has given me a Right (through your 
generous Grant) to demand all your Capacities for my Ser- 
vice." Furthermore, he sought to discourage his friend's 
undertaking by insincere depreciation of Shakespeare and 
fulsome flattery of the threatening critic : 

To say a word to your intention of composing a full and compleat 
Critic on Shakespeare, I own, it would be a treasure to me to 
see it; but to speak for the World, and throw off those Prepos- 
sessions which I have for our Author, I am afraid, the generality 
will regard him as too irregular a Writer to deserve such a Critic.^ 

Of course, the poor quality of the notes was the first reason 
why he suppressed so many ; yet he may have reserved some, 
as he said he did, to answer the attacks which he expected 
to be made upon his edition. In the early days of the con- 
troversy with Pope, his most potent weapon of offense and 
defense had been the publication of some emendation or ex- 
planation of Shakespeare. It is possible, therefore, that he 
wished to carry on the warfare in the same way, for which 
purpose it was necessary to have a supply of ammunition on 
hand.^s 

Theobald's explanation of the omission probably suggested 

27 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 

28 In a previous letter of February 12, 1734, Theobald had asked 
Warburton's leave to copy his letters before returning, on the ground 
that they contained a "rich vein of ore still undrained." Appendix C. 



206 LEWIS THEOBALD 

to Warburton the accusation made in the preface to his 
edition of Shakespeare, 1747 ; namely, that the previous 
editor has sequestered a part of the divine's notes, for the 
benefit, as he supposed, of some future edition. This state- 
ment Warburton made not as an excuse for breaking with 
his correspondent, but in justification of his treatment of the 
unhappy man in his own edition. Since Theobald, many 
years before, had returned his letters and renounced all 
interest in them, and since neither in his second edition of 
Shakespeare nor elsewhere had he made any use of War- 
burton's notes, his faithless friend knew the charge to be 
absolutely false. 

Warburton, not satisfied with Theobald's excuse, notified 
the latter that he had selected fifty of the rejected notes, 
which were better than any of those printed. These, he said, 
he would send to be published in the edition of Shakespeare's 
poems, 29 and Theobald could explain that they had been mis- 
laid when the edition of the plays was prepared. But since 
the careful scholar did not intend to run any risk in admitting 
notes to any work of his on Warburton 's recommendation 
alone, he requested that the remarks be sent as soon as 
possible, 'Tor as, on the one Side, I would not press you in 
time; so, on the other, T would have time fully to weigh 
them. " ^^ Though provoked by the thought that his criti- 
cisms required scrutiny ,^^ Warburton sent the fifty together 
with comments on thirteen of Theobald's remarks.^^ 

29 Letter of March 17, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 634. 

30 Letter of May 30, 1734. Appendix C. 

3^ See Letter of June 2, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 635. Warburton begins this letter "Dear Sir," whereas his 
usual form of address was "Dearest Friend." 

32 Letter of July 11, 1734. Appendix C. Warburton used strong 
terms in complimenting Theobald's edition: "I know it will be a 
pleasure to receive it [the letter containing the thirteen criticisms] 



Theobald's later life 207 

Still chafing under the treatment his notes had received 
and were receiving at the hands of his friend, the 'theological 
bully" in his next letter made a second threat about doing 
some independent work on Shakespeare : 

I have a great number of notes, etc. on Shakespeare for some future 
edition. I have given you a specimen in two or three from the 
Tempest, and Mid-summer Night's Dream, in the fifty, and in this 
edition. How forward are you got towards the Edition of the 
Poems? 33 

Possibly Warburton was designing to edit Shakespeare, but 
it is more probable that his threat of a future edition was 
intended to spur Theobald on to pubUsh the poems, in 
which his own invaluable notes were to appear. His solici- 
tude about the appearance of the edition points to this 
inference. Moreover, after nearly a year had elapsed, he 
asked his correspondent if he had dropped his design en- 
tirely, to which query the latter rephed in the negative, 
promising that the work would appear in the spring of 
1736. 

Finally when the poems showed no promise of appearing 
at the stated time, Warburton's patience broke down. On 
the fourth of May he wrote a letter, no longer extant, it 
would seem, but the contents of which can readily be 
gathered from Theobald's straightforward reply, which 
effectually disposed of the weak and contemptible charges 
made against him. 

and it is no small compliment to your Edition; for I have been so exact 
in my inquisitorial search after faults, that I dare undertake to defend 
every note throughout the whole bulky work, save these thirteen I 
have objected to." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 645. 
Compare the above with what he has to say of the same work in the 
preface to his edition of Shakespeare. 

33 Letter of October 14, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
vol. 2, p. 561. The itahcs are Warburton's. 



208 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736 
Dear Sir, 

I reced yours of the 4*^ Instant, and should have reply'd to it the 
next Post, but that I was willing to get over the Surprize its con- 
tents gave me. It is now retorted upon Me, that you gave Me 
your Notes with a Generosity I could not complain of. I thought 
on the other hand, I had not only confess'd the obUgation in pri- 
vate but to the World. But why am I told that I had all the 
Profit of my Edition? I am sure, I never dreamt to this day, 
but that the Assistance of my Friends were design' d gratuitous; 
and if I misunderstood this Point, I should have been set right 
by some Hints before the Publication. I used, you say, what 
Notes, I thought fit. I own as Editor, I behev'd I had a discre- 
tionary Power of picking and chusing my Materials: and I am 
certain during the Affair, you conceded this Liberty to me: the 
remaining Notes (in an Epistolary Correspondence) being yours, 
or no, is a piece of Casuistry which I shall not dispute upon. Tho' 
I foresee, they are now to be turn'd upon me, and I am to be in the 
State of a country conquer' d by its Auxiliaries, yet tho my Bread 
and Reputation depended upon my Compliance, I would sacrifice 
both Regards at any Price to approve Myself Dear Sir, your 
obliged Friend and very humble Servant. 

Lew. Theobald. 

Since Theobald's failure to publish all of his assistant's 
notes was the chief irritant to Warburton's pride, it is natural 
to infer that the demanding of them back was due to the 
desire to make them public. The inferior scholar had been 
rising in the world, and had been praised for the notes he 
contributed to Theobald's edition.^* With his unjustifiable 
confidence in the excellent quality of his notes strengthened 
by this fact, he became all the more eager to give his criticisms 
to the world. At all events, Theobald, thinking that his 

3* After making Warburton's acquaintance. Bishop Hare praised his 
Shakespearean notes. Watson, Life of Warhurton, 1863, p. 58. This 
same year Warburton published his Alliance between Church and State. 



209 

assistant was intending to publish an edition, realized that 
his wisdom in rejecting the notes would be publicly put upon 
trial. This must be what he means by being ''in the State 
of a country conquered by its Auxiliaries." ^ 

In rejecting the notes of which he could not approve 
Theobald was acting not only within his right, but in accord- 
ance with his duty. Yet even more amazing than this charge 
of omission is Warburton's complaint of not having any part 
in the profit of the edition. It was the custom at that 
time for one scholar to render what gratuitous assistance 
he could to another. Bentley had given of the stores of 
his knowledge even to scholars on the continent, such as 
Graevius, Kuster, and Hemsterhuys. For this reason 
Theobald was certainly right in supposing that his friend's 
assistance was freely given, and in reminding him that any 
thought to the contrary should have been made known 
early in the correspondence. Furthermore, Warburton 
''appears rather to have been recommended to him than he 
to Warburton. Warburton seems to have been quite as 
eager to offer notes on Shakespeare as he was to receive 
them." 3^ After Shakespeare Restored Theobald's reputation 
was high enough to warrant Tonson's saying that the critic 
would have the assistance of all lovers of Shakespeare, so 
that Warburton might well have been proud to have a part 
in the projected edition. Finally, for the avaricious critic, 

3^ In October of the following year Warburton wrote the Reverend 
Thomas Birch that he beUeved he would give an edition of Shakespeare 
to the world; and in September of 1738 he repeated his intention 
to the same gentleman. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
pp. 72, 96. Warburton's first effort, however, to get his notes pub- 
Hshed was in Hanmer's edition, but he fell out with that editor for 
reasons somewhat similar to those that made him break with Theobald. 

^ Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 301. See also Nichols, Illus- 
trations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 242, where Warburton encourages Theo- 
bald in the correspondence, teUing him it should by all means be kept up. 



210 LEWIS THEOBALD 

who was fully cognizant of Theobald's financial straits, to 
begrudge his friend the profits of his edition while he himself 
was enjoying a comfortable living, was certainly not becom- 
ing a Christian, much less a clergyman. ^^ Nor was this 
charge merely an excuse to break up the friendship. Im- 
mediately after Theobald announced Tonson's terms, War- 
burton wrote Stukely that the editor was to have for his 
edition "eleven hundred guineas, and your humble servant 
for his pains one copy of the royal paper books." ^^ 

Our critic was by no means ungrateful for the assistance 
he received. He made a most handsome acknowledgment 
of Warburton's services in his preface, while in the body of 
the work each note belonging to the other was acknowledged 
with high praise. Furthermore, he was eager to repay his 
debt in kind. When he first heard of the other critic's 
intention of editing Pater cuius, he rejoiced in the undertaking 
and assured him that when Shakespeare was off his hands, 
he would repay the least part of his debt by perusing the 
Latin author to find corruptions, a task he would embrace 
with great satisfaction.^^ In his subsequent correspondence 
he frequently mentioned Warburton's design, at the same 
time sending him such notes and transcripts as he thought 
might be helpful. ^^ 

Warburton's part in the disagreement was nothing short 

3^ At this time Warburton possessed the living of Brant-Broughton, 
worth £560, and of Frisby, worth £250. 

38 Letter of November 10, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
ture, vol. 2, p. 13. From this source (or from Theobald's controversy 
with the publishers) may have come the report that Johnson heard 
and recorded in the proposals he issued in 1756 for an edition of Shake- 
speare; namely, that Theobald "considered learning only as an instru- 
ment of gain." 

39 Letter of November 20, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
ture, vol. 2, p. 283. 

*° See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 570, and letters 
of 20 June, 4 July, 29 July, 1732. Appendix C. 



Theobald's later life 211 

of contemptible. Two or three years later he was to be on 
intimate terms with the man who had abused his friend. 
Not only that, he himself was to slander that friend who had 
always dealt honorably by him, a friend who, though suffering 
grievous injuries at his hands and placed in a position to 
make things very unpleasant for Pope and his newly acquired 
champion, maintained a high-minded silence. ^^ But there 
was one who did not forget the past. When, in 1748, 
Mathew Concanen, Theobald's truest friend, returned from 
Jamaica, where for seventeen years he had held the post of 
attorney general, he avoided coming near Warburton, 
which conduct the latter in characteristic fashion attributed 
to his ''scoundrel temper." ^^ 

In September Theobald returned his correspondent's 
letters with the explanation that the delay was caused by 
neither negligence nor reluctance, but by the fact that he had 
been busily employed for self and friends. He renounced all 
the privilege he might have in the notes, and said that as he 
was preparing to throw out three supplementary volumes to 
Shakespeare on the old footing, he claimed the right to revoke 
all Warburton's notes that were to have appeared in them.'*^ 
If Theobald was seriously undertaking such a project, he 
never carried it through to completion. 

From this time on there is little to be found on Theobald's 
life. That his reputation as a scholar was not declining is 

*^ Besides the material Theobald had in his letters for revealing 
to Pope Warburton's opinion of the satirist, he could very easily have 
called attention to three anonymus contributions his former associate 
had made to The Daily Journal, wherein Pope is soundly berated. 
(Professor Lounsbury discovered these. Text of Shakespeare, Chap. 
17.) Warburton's attack on Theobald was pubHcly made only after 
the latter's death, an event of which the former must have learned 
with a sigh of relief. 

*2 Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 30. 

43 Letter of September 4, 1736. Appendix C. 



212 LEWIS THEOBALD 

clearly evidenced by the fact that in 1737 Thomas Birch, 
a friend of Warburton, who was at work on some lives of the 
poets, sent to him a number of queries regarding Ben Jonson.'*^ 
These Theobald answered in scholarly fashion, producing 
his proofs and arriving at his conclusions with sound reason- 
ing. In 1740 appeared the second edition of his Shakespeare 
in eight volumes, from which those notes and parts of the 
preface which he owed to his former assistant were excluded. 
He also omitted the conclusion of the preface, in which he 
had acknowledged the assistance he had received, and had 
mentioned the works read in the preparation of the edition. 

The profit realized on the first issue of his work was suffi- 
cient to remove all want from his door for several years, 
but by the time the second edition was published he was 
again in straitened circumstances. In the spring of 1741 
he wrote the Duke of Newcastle that ''a loss and disappoint- 
ment" made it necessary for him to appeal to that noble- 
man.'** About this time also he published in The London 
Daily Post his last address to the public, ''delivered in a 
most humble strain of supplication," in which he requested 
assistance at the performance of a benefit.^^ It was prob- 
ably the pressure of finances that incited him to attempt 
his last critical work. In 1742 he entered into an agree- 
ment with the Tonsons to edit the plays of Beaumont and 
Fletcher, upon which he had been working for fifteen 
years. Being unwilling to venture on the undertaking 
alone, he publicly advertised for assistance, and was re- 
warded with offers from two gentlemen, Thomas Seward 
and a man by the name of Sympson.^^ Neither of them, 

^* See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 654. 

^^ See Appendix, p. 346. 

46 May 13, 1741. See Nichols, vol. 2, p. 745. 

*^ Seward was canon of Lichfield and Salisbury, a friend of Johnson, 
and father of the " Swan of Lichfield." I have not been able to find any- 
thing about the other gentleman. 



Theobald's later life 213 

however, was able to render very valuable assistance. They 
possessed only the later editions, were not well read in earlier 
English literature, and Seward, at least, was afflicted with a 
vanity almost equal to Warburton's. 

It is not remarkable, then, that as soon as the first volume 
had been printed, trouble arose. Theobald, following the 
practice he had adopted with his first helper, refused to admit 
notes that did not meet with his approval. Immediately 
the two assistants were up in arms, nor would they be pacified 
until the reluctant editor had promised to pubhsh the re- 
jected notes in a postscript at the end of each volume. 
Furthermore, Seward found fault with what he thought 
was Theobald's dogmatic manner of speaking, a vice he 
later piously claimed to have cured by pointing out that 
it was neither right nor politic. 

Death cut short the first editor's part in the work. The 
responsibility of the edition then fell upon Seward, although 
Sympson saw several volumes through the press. Not- 
withstanding the fact that they claimed to have received the 
deceased editor's valuable quartos, with his notes written 
on the margin, the two men were not prepared to produce 
a good edition. Yet, incompetent and rash as they were, 
they tried to follow the method set before them. They were 
not careful in their collating, yet they recognized the value 
of collation ; they were to a great degree ignorant of Eliza- 
bethan history and literature, but they realized that a 
knowledge of such was essential to an editor.*^ Owing to 
their ignorance of Elizabethan language, the supports to 
their bold emendations are weak, but they evidence the feel- 
ing that changes in the text should not be arbitrary, but 
should be supported by some authority. 

*^ Seward says it is necessary for a critic to know "every single 
work, History, Custom, Trade, etc. that Shakespeare himself knew." 
Introduction, p. Ixxiii. The italics are his. 



214 LEWIS THEOBALD 

The edition did not appear until 1750.^^ Although now 
recognized as the first serious attempt toward a critical re- 
construction of an eclectic text, formed by collation and emen- 
dation, it is not held in very high regard. Yet subsequent 
editors have made the mistake of not considering Theobald's 
part separately from the rest.^^ Even a superficial examina- 
tion of the volumes reveals in his portion a more careful 
collation, more variant readings, and a more manifest 
hesitancy to depart from the text than can be found in the 
plays edited by the other two men. Seward himself testified 
to the fact that Theobald collated with accuracy, ^^ while 
there is an abundance of evidence that the latter realized 
the value of the old quartos, and recognized that a careful 
collation of them was necessary to the establishment of a 
good text.^^ His emendations have been so overshadowed 
by his Shakespearean criticism that they have not received 
due attention, but one editor, at least, has praised them.^^ 

^^ The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher. In 
ten Volumes. Collated with all the former Editions, and corrected. With 
Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward 
of Eyaur in Derbyshire, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London: 
Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper in the Strand 1750. 

^° Under Theobald's care were printed all of volume one, including 
The Maid^s Tragedy, Philaster, A King and No King, The Scornful 
Lady ; volume two to page 233, comprising The Custom of the Country, 
The Elder Brother, and nearly four acts of The Spanish Curate; and 
volume three to page 69, consisting of the first four and a half acts of 
The Humorous Lieutenant. 
61 Vol. 2, p. 276. 

62 Theobald is constantly correcting from the old quartos, which, 
he says, are the most to be depended on, and "are worth their Weight 
in Gold." Vol. 2, p. 102; vol. 1, 148. "I am sorry, I have Occasion 
so often to trouble the Readers with these Minutiae Litterarum : I 
am very far from pleading any Merit in it; but it is the dull Duty of 
an Editor to shew, at least, his industry in a faithful Collation of the 
old Copies." Vol. 1, p. 109. His last slap at Pope! 

63 See the introduction to Weber's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. 



Theobald's later life 215 

They employ the same method and evince the same acumen 
and broad scholarship so characteristic of his earlier work.^* 
Finally, in his illustrative notes are found a wealth of parallel 
passages drawn from the literature of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries. 

Of Theobald's last days nothing is known except that they 
were embittered by a severe disease. After suffering from 
a jaundice for several months, he met a peaceful death on 
September 18, 1744. Two days later he was buried in 
St. Pancras cemetery, attended by one friend. 

''He was of a generous spirit, too generous for his circum- 
stances; and none knew how to do a handsome thing or 
confer a benefit, when in his power, with a better grace than 
himself." ^^ Thus wrote one who had known him for 
thirty years. And in looking back over his career there 
appears little to blame and much to praise. Continually 
battling against adversity, the disheartening demands of 
poverty, and the cruel attacks of Pope, he bravely struggled 
through the task he had set himself. Sensitive, modest, 
lacking in self-confidence, his nature was all the more open 
to the thrusts of satire and the falsehoods of mahce. Though 
for the most part suffering in silence and passing over with 
manly dignity the libels of his adversary, at times he showed 
a seeming vindictiveness, which, after all, was but the natural 
reaction of an oversensitive and underconfident nature to 
almost unendurable taunts. Even then he took no mean 
advantage, he indulged in no falsehood ; he attacked only 

^ See vol. 1, pp. 30, 45, 142. Theobald wrote emendations and 
variant readings on the margin of his copies. It was his custom to 
put his initials where he intended a note or thought he had made an 
unusually good emendation, Seward tells us that in one place Theo- 
bald's initials, following a correction, are written in "old ink," while 
"First Quarto" is written in new, showing that his emendation inde- 
pendently made had been verified by collation. Vol. 2, p. 315. 

®^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 745. 



216 LEWIS THEOBALD 

what was manifestly reprehensible. He made by far the 
best figure in the Dunciad war. In the midst of all the dirt 
and filth thrown up by both sides, he alone was free from 
stooping. Sympathetic, liberal, true to his friends, it is 
not strange that they so anxiously defended him. Only 
one proved recreant. Possibly it would be hard to find in 
history a man who has suffered more injustice at the hands 
of posterity. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 

The early years of the eighteenth century witnessed 
numerous editions of the EngUsh classics, produced with 
little or no care.^ The close of the century saw the modern 
method of critical editing fairly well outlined and established. 
In a way the change was gradual. Earlier editions were 
studied more carefully and their respective merits determined. 
The feeling for accuracy in collation gradually grew, fostered 
by the successful restorations made by each succeeding 
scholar. Investigation of earlier literature and history pro- 
duced accumulative results that became the heritage of each 
subsequent critic and suggested further fields of research. 
Yet, as in most gradual changes, there was one point where 
development was turned in the right direction, where the 
path was so plainly pointed out that thereafter none needed 
to go astray. 

In the first quarter of the century two methods had been 
followed in bringing the poets of the past before the public. 
One was employed by publishers who, thinking that some 
profit might be derived from reviving an old poet, issued an 
edition of him generally taken verbatim, with some extra 
errors, from the last printed copy. Such a production was 

^ The years intervening between Rowe's and Pope's editions of 
Shakespeare produced editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, 
Chaucer, Spenser, and MUton. In nearly all editions of earlier poets 
Tonson had a hand. SuflBcient credit has not been given this pubUsh- 
ing house for its part in these and later productions. 



218 LEWIS THEOBALD 

The Works of Ben Jonson, 1715-1716, which is purely a 
reprint of the foUo of 1692 — itself a reprint of the 1640 
folio — and contains neither introduction nor notes. Another 
was the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, issued by Tonson 
in 1711, which is only a reprint of the folio of 1679, and with 
the exception of a preface contains nothing but the bare 
text.^ The method, however, that grew in favor with the 
publishers was the engaging of some living poet to edit an 
older one. In this way they hoped to increase their profits 
since the fame of the editor would give luster to his edition. 
The procedure followed by these poetical editors was very 
simple. They depended chiefly upon the last edition of the 
poet, though sometimes pretending to collate older copies, 
prefixed a preface giving some details of the life of the poet 
and some remarks on his works, and sometimes added a 
glossary. Rowe's edition of Shakespeare made popular the 
prefatory biography, and Gildon added a glossary to Rowe's 
second edition.^ In his edition of the Faerie Queene, 1715, 
Hughes followed Rowe, while Fenton wrote a life for Tonson's 
edition of Milton, 1725.^* The climax in this kind of editing 
was reached in Pope's edition of Shakespeare, which, though 
the best and most ambitious of its kind, rang down the 
curtain on all such performances. The poetical editors were 

2 The preface, entitled "Some Account of the Authors and their 
Writings," mentions the quartos and the folios of 1645 and 1679 but 
says nothing of collation. It gives, however, something of the hves 
of the dramatists and the sources of many of their plays, all of which 
material was drawn from Langbaine. 

' Rowe revised the works of Massinger, and at one time intended 
to pubHsh them. See advertisement prefixed to an edition of The 
Bondman, 1710. 

* WiUiam Broome carried to completion Urry's edition of Chaucer, 
1721. Teuton's edition of Waller, 1729, shows the influence of Shake- 
speare Restored in its emphasis upon coUation and in the explanation of 
words and historical allusions, wherein he quotes passages from various 
authors and "expounds the author by himself." 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 219 

not averse to revising their poets, but their corrections 
were purely arbitrary though occasionally happy. ^ 

Such was the state of editing when Theobald appeared 
on the scene. Familiar with the care employed by classical 
scholars on Greek and Roman writers, stimulated by the 
unusual interest in the new textual criticism, and thoroughly 
conversant with Bentley's method, he saw that to get results, 
it was necessary to treat Shakespeare's text as that of a 
classic. This realization led him to adapt Bentley's method 
to his own purposes in Shakespeare Restored and his edition 
of the dramatist. These mark the beginning of an epoch 
in English scholarship just as plainly as the Epistle to Mill 
and Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris mark a new era 
in classical research. The importance of Theobald's work 
lies in the fact that it inspired scholars with an interest in 
their native literature, created a demand for critical editions 
of Enghsh poets, and made popular a method which, with 
amplifications and modifications, has come down to the 
present day. 

Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the service 
Theobald did for research in English literature when he 
turned the attention of scholars to a new field of investiga- 
tion, a field that had either been unnoticed or scorned before. 
As long as editing remained in the hands of poets who were 
not scholars, there was no hope for any critical work. It 
was Pope's fame and not the worth of his edition that in- 
creased the interest already felt in Shakespeare. The 
merits of the work attracted no scholar, created no interest 
in the text. Its defects aroused Theobald, but Pope can be 

^ Theobald constantly speaks of "poetical editors," and Zachary 
Grey divides Shakespeare's editors into critical and poetical. See 
preface to Critical, Historical and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, 
1745. See also An Attempt to Rescue that Aunciente English Poet, and 
Play-Wright, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, p. 20. 



220 LEWIS THEOBALD 

given no more praise for that result than can be granted 
Boyle for Bentley's Dissertation. Had not the scholar re- 
viewed the poet's edition, textual criticism in the great 
dramatist could hardly have been awakened. On the other 
hand, the success of Theobald's method opened the eyes of 
scholars as well as of general readers of Shakespeare : 

No sooner therefore were Criticisms wrote on our English poets, 
but each deep read scholar whose severer studies had made him 
frown with contempt on Poems and Plays, was taken in to read, 
to study, to be enamour'd; He rejoiced to try his strength with 
the editor, and to become a critic himself. ^ 

Theobald's first work on Shakespeare had created an 
unusual interest in the text, and when it became known 
that he was seriously intending an edition, many assistants 
were glad to render aid.^ Among these were several scholars, 
foremost of whom was Styvan Thirlby, editor of Justin 
Martyr, 1721. At first he had intended to edit Shakespeare, 
but upon learning that the task had fallen into able hands, 
he gave up the design and sent to Theobald his copy of the 
dramatist with marginal corrections together with a long 
list of emendations. He also promised, if his health per- 
mitted, to gather enough material to make an appendix 
to the edition.^ Another student of the classics who assisted 
Theobald with observations was Dr. Thomas Bentley, 

^ Seward's introduction to edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, 
p. Iviii. 

^ When Theobald j&rst closed his contract with Tonson, the latter 
assured him that he would have the assistance of all admirers of Shakes- 
peare. Among those who contributed were Thomas Coxeter, Hawley 
Bishop, Martin Folkes, and an anonymous correspondent, L. H., who 
prefaced his corrections with the remark, "As I am very well satisfied 
with Mr. Theobald's capacity for the province he has undertaken, 
perhaps there may be none of these observations new to him." Nichols, 
Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 631. 

8 Nichols, Illustration of Literature, vol. 2, p. 222. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 221 

nephew of the great Bentley and editor of the ''Little 
Horace." ^ Still another was Nicholas Hardinge, who was 
a graduate of Cambridge and enjoyed some reputation in 
his day.^^ 

The attention of scholars was turned not only to the 
Shakespearean text but also to the texts of other EngHsh 
poets. It is very probable that Shakespeare Restored inspired 
Bentley to his fatal edition of Milton. ^^ For a number of 
years after the appearance of that monstrosity there persisted 
a feeling that it was the first critical edition of an English 
poet. Theobald, in claiming that honor for his Shakespeare, 
felt called upon to point out that his rival intended to show 
not how Milton wrote but how he ought to have written. 
Yet many years later Seward called Bentley, ''the first re- 
markable introducer of Critical Editions of our English 
Poets," and said that the 

strange Absurdities in his Notes on Milton has this good effect, 
that they engag'd a Pierce to answer, and perhaps were the first 
Motives to induce the greatest Poet, the most universal Genius, 
one of the most industrious Scholars in the Kingdom, each to 
become Editor of Shakespeare.^^ 

Of course, the Milton is not a critical edition; it merely 
shows one phase of textual criticism gone mad. Yet while 
the editor established no method, he did call the attention 
of scholars to the text of the great epic. 

Another classical critic to do pioneer work in the textual 
study of English classics was the Reverend John Jortin, a 

^ Theobald's edition of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 427. 

1° Idem, vol. 3, p. 367. Dr. Bentley praised one of his emendations 
on Horace. See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 1, p. 728. 

" Jebb says Bentley first wrote criticisms on Milton in 1726, the 
year Theobald's treatise appeared. 

^2 Introduction to Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Iviii. 
Seward is obviously wrong in implying that Pope, Theobald, and Han- 
mer drew their inspiration from Bentley's Milton. 



222 LEWIS THEOBALD 

friend of Theobald and '^ a scholar in every sense of the word.'' 
Owing to the influence of Shakespeare Restored his first in- 
terest was in the subject of that treatise. He and Theobald 
had discussed the need of a revision of Shakespeare's poems, 
and had Thirlby published his edition of the dramatist, Jortin 
would have assisted in pointing out the passages wherein the 
classics seem to be imitated. Turning away from Shake- 
speare, however, in 1734 he published his Remarks on 
Spenser^ s Poems and on Milton^ s Paradise Lost, practically all of 
which are concerned with verbal criticism, though the author 
is somewhat fearful of emending. ^^ He points out Spenser's 
peculiarities in spelling, pronunciation, meter, and diction. 
He carefully studies the context of the passages he emends, 
and some of his remarks show Theobald's fondness for parallel 
passages.^'* 

In the next quarter of a century nearly all the men who 
attempted critical editions of English poets were recognized 
classical scholars — Morell, Upton, Church, and Whalley — 
and those who were not, with one or two exceptions, had no 
claim to the title of poet. Shakespeare's first real editor 
showed that critical care could be expended on English 
classics with just as much profit and reputation as upon Latin 
and Greek authors. He took the task of editing out of the 
hands of poets and hacks, and gave it to those whose interest 
and abilities lay in research. 

" Theobald thought Jortin's work suffered from being too conserva- 
tive, the author having been frightened by Markland's excessive 
emendations in the classics. See Appendix, p. 329. 

^* See Tracts, Philological, Critical, and Miscellaneous, 1790, vol. 
1, p. 192. While Jortin's notes are not very valuable, he at least 
realized their insufficiency, and acknowledged that he was unable to 
spend the time and apphcation necessary for a critical edition of Spen- 
ser. He expressed the desire, however, to see the exact text restored 
by collation and by comparing the author with himself, a procedure 
Theobald had repeatedly emphasized. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 223 

Although scholars were the first to awake to the significance 
of the innovation that had been introduced into the study of 
English texts, the public became more and more interested. 
Theobald's edition of Shakespeare showed that careful 
textual and explanatory notes enabled the less learned to 
read older literature with a greater degree of pleasure and 
understanding. Thence gradually arose a demand for 
critical editions, and the incentive of praise, so powerful 
before in producing editions of the classics, prompted scholars 
to undertake English poets. 

The favorable reception which the labours of those applauded 
men have met with from the public, who have given new and 
correct editions of our English poets, illustrated with notes, was 
a principal inducement for publishing the works of Jonson in the 
same manner.^ ^ 

With both critics and general readers, English scholarship, 
was rising to an equal dignity with classical, and its value 
was firmly asserted : 

To publish new and correct editions of the works of approved 
authors has ever been esteemed a service to learning. It is not 
material whether an author is ancient or modern. Good criticism 
is the same in all languages. Nay I know not whether there is 
not greater merit in cultivating our own language than any other. 
And certainly next to a good writer, a good critic holds the second 
rank in the republic of letters.^^ 

^5 Preface to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756. Eleven 
years before, Whalley had said that although Shakespeare had been 
considered below his contemporaries, now he was extolled above all, 
owing to the labors of his editors. An Enquiry into the Learning of 
Shakespeare, 1745, p. 11. 

Seward says that "Almost every one buys and reads the works of our 
late critical editors, nay almost every man of learning aims at imitating 
them and making emendations himself." Works of Beaumont and 
Fletcher, 1750, Introduction, p. lix. 

^^ Preface to Thomas Newton's edition of Paradise Lost, 1749. 
Another classical scholar of this period speaks to the same effect: 



224 LEWIS THEOBALD 

One of the elements underlying the romantic revival was 
an awakened interest in old poets.^^ To Theobald belongs 
no small part of the credit for this movement. His critical 
method inspired scholars to resurrect poets who had lain 
in partial obscurity, and who, for the most part, had been 
looked upon only as objects of interest to antiquarians ; ^* 
while his numerous quotations from early writers tended 
to excite curiosity concerning them. Undoubtedly the grow- 
ing appreciation of the literary heritage of the past was first 
stimulated by the efforts of critics and editors. ^^ 

Every reader of Taste must congratulate the present age, on 
the spirit which has prevailed of reviving our Old Poets. Within 

"For the honour of criticism not only the divines already mentioned 
but others also, of rank still superior, have bestowed their labours 
upon our capital poets, suspending for a while their severer studies, 
to relax in these regions of genius and imagination." James Harris, 
Philological Inquiries, Chap, IV, p. 25. 

^^ See W. L. Phelps, The Beginning of the English Romantic Revival. 

^^ "I cannot dismiss this section [Spenser's imitations of Chaucer] 
without a wish, that this neglected author whom Spenser proposed in 
some measure, as the pattern of his language, and to whom he is not 
a Uttle indebted for many noble strokes of poetry should be more 
universally and attentively studied. Chaucer seems to be regarded 
rather as an old poet, than as a good one, and that he wrote English 
verses four hundred years ago seems more frequently to be urged in 
his favor, than that he wrote four hundred years ago with taste and 
judgment. We look upon his poems rather as venerable relics, than 
as finish'd patterns; as pieces calculated rather to gratify the anti- 
quarian than the critic. When I sat down to read Chaucer with that 
curiosity of knowing how the first English poet wrote, I left him with 
the satisfaction of having found what later and more refin'd ages could 
hardly equal in true humour, pathos, or sublimity." Thomas Warton, 
Observations on the Fairy Queen, 1754, p. 141. 

" Seward speaks of "the merit of Criticism in estabUshing the 
taste of the age, in raising respect in the contemptuous and attention 
in the careless readers of our old poets." Works of Beaumont and 
Fletcher, Introduction, p. lix. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 225 

these few years, Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, Jonson, 
and Milton have been pubUshed with elegance and accuracy.^** 

The opening of a new field for scholarship, however, and 
the promoting of a general interest in the literature of the 
past were but the result of the method Theobald established. 
The object of this method was twofold : the establishment 
of the most correct text possible, and the elucidation of that 
text. The first step taken was a careful collation of the 
earliest editions. Both Rowe and Pope claimed to have 
collated, but had done little in that direction. Again and 
again Theobald lashed their carelessness and insisted upon 
the need and value of a careful comparison of the various 
editions. While he left much to be desired in recording 
variant readings, he did note a large number, and where 
necessary, gave reasons for the selection or rejection of read- 
ings. If collation failed to remove obscurities, recourse was 
had to emendations, not the arbitrary changes characteristic 
of preceding editors, but changes supported by some evidence 
and made only where the need was shown. In the elucidation 
of the text, the plan most frequently followed was the 
quoting of parallel passages that illustrated the meaning of 
unfamiliar expressions. Obscure allusions were explained 
by quotations from the literature and references to the 
history of Shakespeare's time. Diligent use was made of 

2° An Impartial Estimate of the Reverend Mr. Upton^s Notes on the 
Fairy Queen, 1759, p. 1. This sentence is immediately followed by 
another giving the reason for the popularity of critical editions: "They 
[the poets mentioned above] have been explained from a diligent ex- 
amination of the writings of their contemporary authors; and in 
proportion as they have received this rational method of illustration, 
they have been studied with new pleasure and improvement. Among 
the rest Spenser, as he best deserves, has engaged the attention of 
ingenious critics." When we consider that "this rational method" 
was wholly unknown before Theobald made it popular, we see what he 
contributed to romanticism. 



226 LEWIS THEOBALD 

histories, dictionaries, glossaries, antiquarian productions, 
and such other works of reference as were then available. 
Finally, both textual and explanatory notes show a close 
study of the author and knowledge of his peculiarities in 
thought and style. 

While the impulse to edit Shakespeare came from Theo- 
bald, directly or indirectly, the editors immediately following 
him did not show much familiarity with his method. ^^ Han- 
mer followed Pope, but used some of Theobald's material. 
Warburton contented himself with his former friend's colla- 
tion, and stole from him to add to his own frequently absurd 
notes. And Johnson, intent on his common sense remarks, 
did not advance collation or investigation very far. 

With the later editors of Shakespeare, however, the case 
is different: ''So far as any later editor achieved success," 
says Professor Lounsbury, "it was by following and improv- 
ing upon the methods which Theobald had adopted." '^ 
In speaking of Theobald's death Warburton's biographer 
says. 

Such was the end of him who first showed how Shakespeare's 
text was to be amended and illustrated, and whom succeeding com- 
mentators have followed, if not exactly, to borrow the illustration 
of Holofernes, as a hound his master, yet assuredly, at least the 
best of them, with close imitation.^^ 

One scholar, by no means friendly to Theobald, is of the 
opinion that by a careful collation of quartos and folios he 
pointed the way to the modern editor.^^ When the same 

21 Johnson's interest in the text was probably inspired by Hanmer's 
edition, which, in turn, grew out of the interest aroused by Theobald's 
work. Warburton's study of the plays is directly traceable to his 
association with Theobald. See D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century 
Essays on Shakespeare, Introduction, p. li. 

22 Text of Shakespeare, p. 544. 

23 Watson, Life of William Warhurton, p. 43. 

24 D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxix. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 227 

investigator later remarks that the best commentary on 
Shakespeare is the hterature of his own age, he could very 
well have given Theobald the credit for the discovery of this 
fact also.2^ As Professor Lounsbury says, Theobald was the 
first to attempt a real collation of the sources of the text, and 
the first to illustrate its meaning by a study of contemporary 
Elizabethan literature. ^^ Johnson gave Pope the credit 
for pointing the way toward collation ; but though the poet 
spoke of collating the old editions, his failure to follow his 
own advice gave no weight to the suggestion. It certainly 
did not teach Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson to be more 
accurate. To Steevens has been given the credit for first 
following Johnson's plan of illustrating Shakespeare by the 
writers of his time, but the method had been exemplified some 
forty years before. 

The influence of Theobald's treatment of the text is im- 
mediately seen in those critical treatises, modeled upon 
Shakespeare Restored, which appeared about the middle 
of the eighteenth century. In 1740 Francis Peck published 
his New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John 
Milton, which contained a section entitled '' Explanatory 
and Critical Notes on divers Passages of Milton and Shake- 
speare." Peck claims that his remarks on the dramatist 
were written in 1736, two years after Theobald's edition had 
been given to the public. Though he is not very fortunate 
in his emendations, which he advances in Theobald's manner, 
his explanatory notes are often valuable, for he followed his 
predecessor in bringing his extensive antiquarian knowledge 
to bear upon allusions to the customs and history of former 
times. In his explication of words and phrases he is fond 
of ''expounding the author by himself," so that notes of this 
kind are exact copies of Theobald's. Another praiseworthy 

" D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxxii. 
28 Text of Shakespeare, p. 544. 



228 LEWIS THEOBALD 

feature of the essay is the bibhography of Shakespeare's 
works, placed at the end of the chapter, and arranged in 
chronological order, which, besides being much more com- 
plete than any previous one, contains remarks on the various 
editions quoted from Theobald and Langbaine. 

Another work which adopted the new method was Peter 
Whalley's An Inquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare with 
Remarks on several Passages of his Plays published in 1745. 
Only a minor part of the production is devoted to the question 
of Shakespeare's knowledge of the classics, the author adopt- 
ing the moderate view that the dramatist had more learning 
than was generally accorded him. To support this opinion 
he lays much emphasis on the fact that the Hamlet story is 
contained in Saxo Grammaticus, and quotes a number of 
passages from Latin and Greek authors whom, he thinks, 
Shakespeare imitated. Throughout his discussion of the 
plays he adopts the historical point of view, explaining pass- 
ages and allusions in Shakespeare by reference to the thought, 
customs, and literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries. There could hardly be a more emphatic testi- 
mony to the remarkable change that Theobald had introduced 
into the study of Shakespeare than this small publication 
which, besides drawing much unacknowledged information 
from Theobald's edition, follows his method in explaining 
Shakespeare by the times in which he lived, even touching on 
the dramatic history of that period. 

Besides being the editor of one splendid edition, John 
Upton, prebendary of Rochester, was the author of three 
critical treatises on English poets. The first of these was 
Critical Observations on Shakespeare, 1746. This volume is 
divided into three books. The first is concerned chiefly 
with a discussion of the plots and characters of the plays 
together with an account of the rise and development of the 
classical drama. The second is confined strictly to verbal 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 229 

criticism, the first part defending the text against previous 
emendations, the second containing the author's own cor- 
rections. The third book contains, besides a treatise on the 
meter of EngUsh verse, a series of rules governing Shake- 
speare's styhstic and grammatical peculiarities. 

The two great handicaps under which Upton labored 
were his failure to collate and his firm belief in Shakespeare's 
first-hand knowledge of the classics. ^^ Being a good classical 
scholar, he was prone to explain everything as an allusion 
to the classics and to find classical parallels for almost every 
line.2^ Yet in the defense of the text against the emendations 
of others and in the support he gives his own corrections he 
shows that he has been to school to Theobald. He upholds 
the texts in a fine in the fourth act of Macbeth, "Then, my 
queen, in silence sad," by quotations from Shakespeare, 
Milton, and Spenser, which show the meaning of ''sad" to 
be ''sober." He likewise supports emendations of his own 
by quoting parallel passages from Shakespeare and the 
classics. ^^ In one place he adds many more examples to 
Theobald's account of the old Vice, and in the same manner. 
In supporting his change of ''Adam Cupid" for ''Abraham 

2' A different attitude to Shakespeare's learning is taken by the 
author of An Attempte to Rescue that Aundente English Poet, and Play- 
Wrighte, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, who, following Theo- 
bald's lead, holds that the dramatist got most of his learning from 
translations. The writer is very much opposed to emending the text, 
on the ground that Shakespeare is too modern a writer to require 
anything more than correction of printer's errors and the restoration 
of passages found in the quartos. Yet he approves of a number of 
Theobald's emendations, praises his collation and bitterly attacks 
Warburton for his failure to acknowledge emendations derived from 
the earher edition. 

2* Such, for instance, is his explanation of "We have scorched the 
snake" in the third act of Macbeth, which, he says, is an elegant and 
learned allusion to the Hydra. 

29 See pp. 192, 198. 



230 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Cupid" in the second act of Romeo and Juliet, he makes use 
of information furnished by Theobald's edition, and refers 
his readers to Much Ado About Nothing, ''where Mr. Theo- 
bald's note is worth reading." ^^ The method employed 
in drawing up the rules in the third book of the volume is 
exactly the same that had been used in Shakespeare 
Restored.^^ 

In 1754 Zachary Grey published his Critical, Historical, 
and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, with emendations of 
the Text and Metre, in the preface to which he says that in 
spite of the many editions of Shakespeare references to a great 
many laws and many allusions to historical incidents have 
been overlooked. As would be expected from this statement, 
most of his notes are explanatory ; what emendations he 
does make are confined to meter. His investigation followed 
the lines laid down by Theobald, being devoted to Ehza- 

30 This manner of introducing Theobald's discoveries as if his own, 
only mentioning him toward the last, is seen again on page 255 where 
he gives the story of the Egyptian robber recounted in Heliodorus, 
refers to the passage in the fifth act of Twelfth Night where Theobald 
has given the story, and incidentally mentions the latter's note. It 
is strange that Theobald after having made the discoveries should 
have missed these two corruptions. 

31 Upton is continually mentioning Bentley, whom he both admires 
and condemns, and often joins Theobald with him: "As Mr. Theobald 
and Dr. Bentley often tell us, that they had the happiness to make 
many corrections, which they find afterwards supported by the au- 
thority of better copies," etc., p. 236. 

Three years later appeared Remarks on Three Plays of Benjamin 
Jonson, which has been attributed to James Upton, John's father, 
but which certainly belongs to the son. In addition to comments on 
Volpone, Epicoene, and the Alchemist, it contains a number of remarks 
on Shakespeare. The majority of the notes are devoted to showing 
classical parallels, and the remainder are chiefly explanatory. Upton 
draws on Theobald's edition for much of his information, while he em- 
ploys the latter's method in illustrating Jonson by means of the litera- 
ture and customs of his age. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 231 

bethan history and literature, as well as Chaucer and 
Skelton.32 

Besides being the occasion of many pamphlets, War- 
burton's edition of Shakespeare inspired Benjamin Heath's 
treatise on the dramatist, but the latter was not published 
until Johnson's edition made its appearance.^^ The author 
says he carefully collated Pope, Theobald, Shakespeare Re- 
stored, and Johnson's Remarks on Macbeth. Not possessing 
the quartos or the two early folios, he reUed mainly on Pope's 
and Theobald's collation. He claims that the explication of 
the true meaning of the old readings removed many obscuri- 
ties ; and, indeed, in attacking or supporting an emendation 
he relies chiefly on explaining the passage. Little evi- 
dence or illustrative material is introduced. For this reason 
he resembles Theobald only in the close study of the text. 
Most of his time is spent in agreeing with the latter's cor- 
rections, and attacking those of Warburton, whose ''licentious 
criticism" he lashes most mercilessly. 

The application of Theobald's method was not confined 
to Shakespeare. Although the great Elizabethan offered 
the most inviting field, the need for critical work on other 
writers impressed itself upon scholars, who soon saw that the 
treatment accorded the Shakspearean text could be applied 
with equal success to any poet of the preceding centuries. ^^ 

^2 Grey was handicapped in having only the folio of 1632 to collate. 
Many of his corrections are introduced from this edition and, therefore, 
are likely to be wrong. His notes bear a close resemblance to Theo- 
bald's. See pp. 2, 13. 

^^ A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, wherein the Alterations introduced 
into it by the more modern Editors and Critics are particularly considered. 
1765. 

^ "Beaumont and Fletcher are another field of criticism next in 
beauty to Shakespeare, and like him over-run with weeds, many of 
which are, we hope, now rooted out." Introduction to Works of 
Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Ixxiii. 



232 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Thus within a quarter of a century after the appearance 
of Theobald's epoch-making work critical editions of the 
most important EngUsh poets were attempted. 

The first poet to benefit by the new criticism was Chaucer. 
In the sixteenth century two editions of him had appeared, 
Thynne's, 1532, and Speght's 1598, both of which made use 
of collation. The second work was immediately reviewed by 
Thynne's son, Francis, and had his Animadversions been 
printed, Theobald could not have claimed for Shakespeare 
Restored the honor of being the first attempt of its kind on an 
Egnlish poet.^^ Over two hundred years later John Urry 
undertook to edit Chaucer, but dying before the completion 
of his design, left the task to be finished by William Broome. 
Although agreeing with Tyrwhitt in thinking this edition 
the worst that had appeared. Professor Lounsbury is of the 
opinion that by a comparison of the manuscripts it made 
plain the path that must be taken. ^^ 

Urry's work, however, was such a failure that the editor 
can hardly be said to have pointed the way to a good edition 
any more than the two earlier editors who had also em- 
ployed collation. But the next attempt to edit the poet 
shows distinctly the influence of Theobald's method. In 
1737 Dr. Thomas Morell, a classical scholar, issued a speci- 
men of a new edition under the title The Canterbury Tales 
of Chaucer in the original, from the most authentic manuscripts, 
and as they are turned into Modern languages hy several Eminent 
Hands, with references to authors ancient and modern, various 

35 Animadversions upon the Annotations and Corrections of some im- 
perfections of impressions of Chaucer's Workes was printed for the 
first time by H. J. Todd in Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of 
Gower and Chaucer, 1810. Thynne refutes Speght's remarks and 
emendations by explaining allusions to history and Uterature, and 
upholds his own conjectures by quoting authorities. In short, Chaucer 
is treated hke a classic text. 

^ Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 294. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 233 

readings and explanatory notes. The plan adopted was the 
same as that given to the world three years before: the 
collation of the best manuscripts, the recording of the most 
important variant readings, the explanation of allusions to 
history, mythology, and contemporary social hfe, and the 
defining of obsolete words by parallel passages. Professor 
Lounsbury holds that while the edition was by no means 
perfect, it contained much of value and was very good for its 
day: 

The notes at the bottom of the page, with parallel passages ex- 
planatory of the use of words, frequently contained information 
of value, which has more than once been rediscovered in modern 
times and announced with a good deal of ostentation.'^ 

Another work that showed Theobald's influence was 
Zachary Grey's edition of Butler's Hudibras, 1744.38 The 
editor was vicar of St. Giles and St. Peters, and a man of 
wide reading. Being a strong churchman, he got into many 
quarrels with dissenters, in the course of which he wrote 
numerous controversial books and pamphlets, and acquired 
an extensive knowledge of the puritan Hterature of the 
seventeenth century, so essential in illustrating Butler. The 
new field of scholarly activity opened by Theobald inspired 
him to put a critical hand to the Hudibras}^ 

" Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 297. 

38 Hudibras, in three parts, Written in the Time of the Late Wars; 
Corrected and Amended. With large Annotations, and a Preface. By 
Zachary Grey LL.D. 1744. 

33 In his praise of Shakespeare Restored Concanen called especial 
attention to the opportunities Hudibras offered to the critic. While 
there is no evidence to the effect, Grey may possibly have read Con- 
canen's statement. The large amount of illustrative material in the 
notes compels the behef that the editor was a number of years collecting 
it, which fact, together with Grey's high opinion of Theobald and the 
numerous references to his Shakespeare, makes it probable that the 
work was undertaken not long after Theobald's edition appeared. 



234 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Since the text of Hudibras offered no particular difficulties, 
most of the notes, as is mentioned in the preface, are ex- 
planatory, though there are a few places where new readings 
are introduced.'^^ The pages are filled with references to 
every kind of writing :^^ ''Grey's knowledge of puritan 
literature enabled him to illustrate his author by profuse 
quotations from contemporary authors, a method com- 
paratively new." "^^ Not only does Grey make use of puritan 
literature, but he also levies upon antiquaries, chronicles, 
medieval romances, Spenser, Chaucer and the Elizabethan 
dramatists. He is continually profiting by information 
given in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare,^^ and his notes 
explaining customs, words, or historical allusions are but 
copies of the Shakespearean scholar's.^ So thorough was 
Grey's investigation that his notes are still valuable ^^ and 
to him has been ascribed the method first exempUfied in 
Theobald's work. 

The poet whose influence was most widely felt throughout 
the dechning years of classicism was Milton. The close of 
the previous century had seen his reputation slowly rising, 
and had witnessed at least one ambitious edition.*^ Interest 

" See vol. 1, p. 10. 

41 In his preface to his Voyage to Lisbon, Fielding speaks of the 
edition as the "single book extant in which above five hundred authors 
are quoted, not one of which could be found in the collection of the 
late Dr. Mead." 

42 D.N.B., vol. XXIII, p. 219. 

43 See vol. 1, pp. 6, 33, 42, 45, 50. 

44 See vol. 2, p. 33, where he makes use of information furnished by 
Theobald, and adds, "I do not advance this without some Authority, 
and a Quotation from Ben Jonson will do." See also vol. 1, p. 19, 
where he explains the meaning of "hight." 

45 See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VIII, p. 463. 

46 Tonson's edition with Patrick Hume's annotations, 1695, "the 
first attempt to illustrate an English Classic by copious and continued 
notes." See J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton Tradition, p. 148. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 235 

in the poet, however, received a tremendous impetus from 
Addison's criticisms in the Spectator.'^^ The fruits of this 
interest are seen in Tonson's two editions, 1719 and 1725, 
in the first of which the pubUsher made use of Addison's 
remarks, and in the second prefixed a fife written by Fenton. 
Though these editions and criticisms did much toward 
making the pubhc more famihar with the epic, they did not 
stimulate interest in the text. This result was accomplished 
by Bentley's performance, which, though worthless itself, 
aroused other scholars to efforts in the same direction.*^ 
Furthermore, the extremity of Bentley's views made later 
critics more cautious. In his review of the edition Pearce 
is sane and sober, never hesitating to demolish the editor's 
belligerent corrections, though always treating him with 
respect. Jortin's notes, while in general uninteresting, throw 
some light on the text. John Hawkey, in his edition of 
Paradise Lost, pubUshed at Dublin in 1747, sought to establish 
the true text by a collation of the original editions. In every 
case the methods employed were Theobald's, not Bentley's. 
But the one eighteenth-century edition of Paradise Lost 
that has claim to the title '^ critical" was prepared by Thomas 
Newton in 1749.'*^ At one time a fellow of Trinity College 

"7 Principally his Critique on Paradise Lost, which appeared during 
the first three months of 1712. 

*^ For the various critical and biographical treatises on Milton, 
as well as editions of his poetry, see J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton 
Tradition, chap. VI. 

*^ Paradise Lost. With Notes of Various Authors. London, 1749. 
Two Volumes. "By the middle of the century there was full prep- 
aration already made for an extensive work on the part of a judicious 
critical editor. . . . The great work was the first various edition of 
Paradise Lost (May 20, 1749) which was indeed the first variorum edition 
of an English classic. . . . The work was generally applauded; and 
in various modifications became the standard edition of Paradise 
Lost for the remainder of the eighteenth century." — J. W. Good, 
op. dt., p. 182. 



236 LEWIS THEOBALD 

through Bentley^s favor, the editor later became chaplain 
to Pulteney, Earl of Bath, by whose aid he secured the 
rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow. In his preface Newton speaks 
of the esteem in which correct editions were then held, and 
argues in behalf of their value. Like Theobald he went to 
the classics for a model : 

My design in the present edition is to publish the Paradise Lost 
as the work of a classic author cum notis variorum. And in order 
to this end, the first care has been to print the text correctly ac- 
cording to Milton's own editions.^" 

These he took as the basis of his text, and realizing that 
there was less room for emendation in Milton than Shake- 
speare, claims never to have emended without noting the 
old reading and without giving some reason for the change. 
He followed Theobald in describing the purpose of his notes, 
which, he says, are critical and explanatory — to correct 
errors of former editions, discuss various readings, establish 
the true text of Milton, illustrate sense, clear syntax, explain 
uncommon words, and show imitations. 

Many of the notes in this edition, especially the remarks 
of Hume and Addison, are concerned with aesthetic criticism, 
but Newton's annotations are devoted mainly to explana- 

5° Newton used notes of the following critics: Hume, Bentley, 
Pearce, Upton, Heylin, Jortin, Addison, Thyer, Fenton, Richardson, 
Birch, and Warburton. Though styUng the remarks of the great 
scholar as the ''dotages of Bentley," he considered some very useful. 
In this judgment he was doubtless influenced by Pope's copy of the 
marvelous edition, wherein the poet had commended many of the 
critic's corrections. Newton praises Pearce, and confesses that he 
was led by the latter's remarks to edit Milton. Upton's comments 
were taken from Critical Observations on Shakespeare, while Thyer 
and Heyhn sent manuscript notes. Some of Warburton's notes were 
taken from his contributions to the History of the Works of the Learned, 
1738, while others were sent in manuscript by the author. Among 
the latter may have been Theobald's explanation of "pernicious," 
for Newton gives the same definition of the word. See vol. 1, p. 427. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 237 

tion and textual criticism, though his emendations are 
neghgible. He defends the text against the corrections of 
earUer critics by quoting passages from Milton ; in other 
words, by expounding Milton by himself. In giving ex- 
planations of words he draws on the literature known to the 
poet — Spenser, Shakespeare, Harrington, Bacon, and others. 
In short, he walked in the path that was fast becoming 
popular, and while Milton was almost too recent a writer to 
receive the treatment accorded Spenser and Shakespeare, 
Newton's notes are recognizably similar to Theobald's. ^^ 

With the exception of Shakespeare, Spenser was the sub- 
ject of closer study than any other poet. The age of Pope, 
fettered with its critical prepossessions, had little knowledge 
of the poet and less appreciation of his poetry. Yet a series 
of satiric and burlesque imitations, as well as the serious 
admiration of a few men like Prior, had at least kept him 
in the public eye. Furthermore, the frequent references 
to the Faerie Queene in such critical works as had appeared 
attracted the attention of scholars burning with inquisitive 
zeal. As early as 1734 Jortin had made the poem the sub- 
ject of a textual treatise ; but it was not until the sixth dec- 
ade of the century that critical interest in the poet reached 
unusual proportions. Within this period there appeared 
no less than four editions and three critical treatises. 

The uncritical method employed in the first two of these 
editions ^^ prompted Upton to write his A Letter Concerning 

" See vol. 1, pp. 119, 400, 423, 428, and notes on Bk. II, 11. 108, 494, 
and Bk. Ill, 11. 335, 562.* 

52 A second edition of Hughes' edition, 1750, and Birch's reprint 
of the foHo of 1609, 1751. Upton was among the first to reaUze that 
the proper editing of an English classic required learning and industry. 
He praised Jortin's refusal to edit Spenser because he lacked the re- 
quisite time, and lamented the fact that hasty editors with Httle learn- 
ing or application were wont to hire themselves to booksellers. Their 
conduct, he says, could only be excused on the ground of poverty, an 



238 LEWIS THEOBALD 

a New Edition of Spenser^s Faerie Queene. To Gilbert West, 
Esq. 1751. A large part of the letter is devoted to telling 
the story of the poem, explaining the religious symbolism, 
describing historical personages, who, the author thought, 
were disguised in the characters, and to pointing out classical 
imitations and imitations of Chaucer. The rest of the 
book is concerned with emending and explaining the text, 
in which task he follows the new method closely. ^^ Further- 
more, in giving the requirements of an editor, he merely 
restates what Theobald had established, that ''an editor 
of Spenser should be master of Spenser's learning : for other- 
wise how could he know his allusions and various beauties." 
The fault with Upton's work, first evident in his Remarks 
on Shakespeare, is his constant introduction of the classics 
where they have no business, and his addiction to absurd 
etymologies, which, if credited, would force the inference 
that English was derived directly from Greek. 

The most important contribution made at this time to 
Spenserian criticism was Thomas Warton's Observations on 
the Faerie Queene of Spenser, 1754. To the author of this 
treatise has been given the honor of laying the foundations 
of historical criticism because he sought an explanation of 
the poem in the literature of and before the sixteenth century 
and in the customs and manners of the Elizabethan age.^^ 

excuse which did not apply to Rowe and Pope, between whom there 
was Httle to choose. Upton was the first to emphasize the duty of 
recording variant readings: "Methinks every reader would require 
that the last editor should faithfully and fairly exhibit all the various 
readings of even the least authority." 

53 See his correction of bilive for alive in Bk. 1, Canto II, St. 19. 
As a subscriber to Theobald's Shakespeare, Upton was in a position to 
learn the previous editor's method. 

" Clarissa Rinaker, Thomas Warton A Biographical and Critical 
Study. Univ. of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, vol. II, 
No. I, p. 47. The reviewer of Upton's edition of the Faerie Queene 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 239 

But he can hardly claim this credit. The preface to Theo- 
bald's Shakespeare distinctly stated that an editor ''should 
be well vers'd in the History and Manners of his Author's 
age," while the notes to the various volumes gave ample 
evidence of the editor's practice of acquainting himself 
with the literature accessible to Elizabethans. Possibly 
the consciousness that he was stealing another man's thunder 
induced Warton to omit Shakespeare when, in propounding 
Theobald's gospel, he says, 

in criticism upon Milton, Johnson, Spenser, and some other of 
our older poets, not only a competent knowledge of all ancient 
classical learning is requisite, but also an acquaintance with those 
books, which though now forgotten and lost, were yet in repute 
at the time in which each author respectively wrote, and which 
it is most likely he read.^^ 

Warton approaches Theobald more closely than any other 
critic, a fact especially evident in his use of out-of-the-way 
reading to establish Spenser's sources. Compare, for in- 
stance, the passage in which he shows that Spenser was in- 
debted to the Morte D' Arthur rather than to Geoffrey of 
Monmouth with Theobald's note showing that Shakespeare 
went to Wynken de Worde rather than Chaucer. ^^ Further- 
says of Warton: "Not content with the petty diligence of recovering 
lost syllables nor acquiescing in the easy talk of praising without 
reason, he has attentively surveyed the learning and the fashions 
which prevailed in the age of his poet. He had happily discovered the 
books which Spenser himself had read, and from whose obscure and 
obsolete sources he derived most of his principal fictions. By means 
of these materials, judiciously selected and conducted, he has been 
enabled to give the world a more new and original piece of criticism, 
than any before extant." An Impartial Estimate of the Reverend Mr. 
Upton's Notes on the Fairy Queen, 1759, p. 2. 

^^ Observations, p. 243. 

^ Idem, pp. 15 ff., and ed. of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 14. Theobald's 
discovery first appeared in Mist's Journal, March 16, 1728. Warton 
makes the same use of the ** Blatant Beast" that Theobald made of 



240 LEWIS THEOBALD 

more, the Spenserian critic makes the same use of parallel 
passages as the Shakespearean. When he says that to pro- 
duce an author's imitations of himself is particularly useful 
in explaining diflficult passages and words, he is merely 
stating in different language Theobald's dictum, ''To ex- 
pound an Author by himself is the surest Means of coming 
at the Truth of his Text." ^^ In showing Spenser's pe- 
culiarities in spelling, versification, and language, and in 
defending a reading against Upton or explaining the meaning 
of a word, the critic produces, in Theobald's manner, a 
number of quotations from Spenser or contemporary litera- 
ture.^^ Warton's textual criticism taUies in almost every 
detail with that of the previous scholar who must have been 
his model. ^^ 

the "Sagittary." Because of his explanation the latter was impaled 
on Pope's satire for reading "All such reading as was never read." 
No wonder Warton took Pope to task for the Une! 

" Observations, p. 181, and Shakespeare Restored, p. 128. 

" Compare Observations, pp. 84, 123, 201, 206, with Shakespeare 
Restored, pp. 8, 40, 110, 151. Below is a typical note from Warton: 

"Because I could not give her many a Jane. 
So Chaucer. 

Of Bruges were his hosin broun, 
His Robe was of Chekelatoun 

That cost many a Jane. 
Many a jane, that is, much money. Skinner informs us, that Jane is 
a coin of Geneva; and Speght Gl. to Chaucer, interprets Jane, half- 
pence of Janua, or galy half -pence: 
As ... Dere ynough, a Jane 

And in other places." 

59 In the introduction to his edition of Ben Jonson, Gifford gave 
Warton the credit for originating the "cheap and miserable display 
of learning" shown in quoting many parallel passages. Yet the more 
modern editor adopted the practice — Theobald's not Warton's — in 
his own notes, and confessed that "Uncommon and obsolete words 
are briefly explained, and where the phraseology was doubtful or 
obscure, it is illustrated and confirmed by quotations from contemporary 
authors." 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 241 

The year 1758 saw two critical editions of the Faerie Queene. 
The preface to the first, edited by Ralph Church, a master 
of arts of Oxford and a scholar of some note, gives a careful 
account and full description of the old editions.^^ Since the 
various editions are denoted by letters and numerals, the 
first instance of such a procedure, and since many variant 
readings are recorded at the bottom of the page, the volumes 
present a very modern appearance. ^^ For the first three 
books of the poem Church adopted as the standard text 
the quarto of 1590 ; for the second three books the quartos 
of 1596 ; and for the two cantos of the incomplete book the 
folio of 1609. He held that the later editions were of no 
authority, but in his footnotes he gave readings from them. 
Church's collation was careful and thorough ; his faithfulness 
in recording variant readings surpassed that of any previous 
editor. 

Church was incited to his work by the realization that 
Spenser needed a critical editor, a realization that was be- 
coming more and more prevalent not only as regards Spenser 
but as regards all old poets. The method he employed was 
that originated by the man who first pointed out the need and 
value of critical research. When the Spenserian editor 
refused, without giving due notice, to introduce into his 
text any word differing from the editions he had accepted as 
standard, he was only following that radical departure from 
the ways of poetical editors which Theobald had established. ^^ 

^° The Faerie Queene, By Edmund Spenser. A New Edition, with 
Notes critical and explanatory, by Ralph Church, M.A. Late Student 
of Christ Church, Oxon. In four volumes. London 1758. 

®i He refers to the quarto of 1590 as P. 1., the quarto of 1596 as P. 
2., the folio of 1609 as L., the folio of 1611 as L. 2., Hughes' editions as 
HI, H2, and the edition of 1751 as B. 

62 "Whenever I have ventur'd at an emendation, a Note is con- 
stantly subjoined to justify and assert the Reason of it." Edition of 
Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. 



242 LEWIS THEOBALD 

From the latter also was derived the procedure employed in 
the explanatory notes. Church studies Spenser's metrical 
peculiarities and quotes numerous passages from the Faerie 
Queene to substantiate his conclusion. He has recourse to 
dictionaries, antiquaries, chronicles, and histories. In elu- 
cidating Spenser's expressions and allusions he makes ex- 
tensive use of parallel passages quoted from the literature of 
the poet's time, such as Jonson, Sidney, Raleigh, Shake- 
speare, Fairfax, as well as Chaucer and Geoffry of Monmouth. 
In short, he has given to Spenser the same treatment accorded 
Shakespeare.^^ 

The other edition was by John Upton, a man whom we 
have had occasion to mention frequently, and who occupies 
a respectable place in early English scholarship. ^^ He gives 

«3 In his preface Church says that his edition "is intended for the 
use of the English Reader, but is submitted hkewise to the judgment 
of the learned." Scholars were beginning to write for scholars and 
were willing to have their work judged by scholarly standards. Theo- 
bald had expressed the same sentiment: "As to my Notts (from which 
the common and learned Readers of our Author, I hope, will derive 
some Pleasure;)" etc., Edition of Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. 

Church seldom introduces his conjectures into the text. In the 
notes he produces them in Theobald's manner. See his emendation 
on the Faerie Queene, Bk. Ill, c. 11, st. 50: " . . . and boldly had him 
bace. So all the editions. But I incline to think that Spenser gave 

. . . and boldly bad the bace . . . 
i.e. they boldly challenged each other to run after OUyphant, 

And each did strive the other to outgoe. 
So Warner in his Albion's England, printed at London, 1598. 
The Romaines bid the bace . . . (page 71) i.e. gave the challange. 
And again, page 73. 

Even we do dare to bid the bace.^' 
See also vol. 1, pp. 98, 179. 

^ Spenser's Fairie Queene. A New Edition with a Glossary, and 
Notes explanatory and critical. By John Upton, Prebendary of Rochester 
and Rector of Great Ris^ngton in Glocester shire. In Two Volumes, 
London: MDCCLVIII. Upton intended to add a third volume 
consisting of Spenser's other works. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 243 

an account of the old quartos and folios and takes as standard 
the same editions as Church. Although he consulted and 
mentions in his notes the later editions, he holds them of 
little authority ; he cannot conceal his contempt for Hughes' 
production and the edition published under Dr. Birch's 
care, though really Mr. Kent's. While Upton is not as 
thorough in recording variant readings as Church, he gives 
a large number of those he thinks worth while. Refusing 
to introduce any of his conjectures into the text, he consist- 
ently relegates them to the notes. In this respect he was 
far ahead of the times. 

Upton's notes contain a wealth of information. His 
illustrative material is drawn from authors contemporary 
with Spenser — Shakespeare, Sidney, Raleigh, Fairfax, 
Drayton. He also makes extensive use of the literature that 
may have played a part in the making of the Faerie Queene, 
many passages being quoted from Chaucer, Ariosto, Boiardo, 
Lydgate, and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Besides these he 
consulted chroniclers, historians, and antiquarians. Most 
numerous are his quotations from the classics and references 
to the Bible. He practices Theobald's theory of ''expound- 
ing an author by himself" by quoting many lines from 
Spenser, especially when showing the peculiarities of Spenser's 
spelling or meter. Generally speaking, his notes are valuable 
in that he brings to the study of the epic an extensive knowl- 
edge of the literature accessible to Spenser. 

Upton's edition is one of the best of the eighteenth-century 
editions of any poet.^^ This fact is apparent even in the 

^5 "To Upton, a man of rare learning and sagacity, the student is 
more indebted than to any other writer for elucidation of the authors 
whom Spenser had read or had imitated. Much is due to Warton and 
Jortin." F. G. Child, preface to edition of Spenser, 1855. In the 
preface to his edition of Spenser, 1805, the Reverend H. J. Todd says, 
"Of the Faerie Queene two separate editions by Mr. Upton and Mr. 



244 LEWIS THEOBALD 

glossary, which is a marked improvement on any previous 
one. Hughes' glossary was almost entirely copied from that 
of the folio of 1679, which was itself in large part taken from 
the glossary of E.K., the annotator of the Shepherd's Calendar. 
In two respects Upton departed from the model set by Theo- 
bald. Probably influenced by Johnson's dictionary, he in- 
troduced into his glossary rather than his notes many parallel 
passages illustrating the meaning of words. He also rele- 
gated the notes to the end of the second volume, leaving 
the pages free for the text. 

More than any other, Spenserian investigation profited 
by the method first applied to Shakespeare. With this 
investigation Theobald was not directly associated. He was 
certainly a friend of Jortin and probably of Upton, but at 
no time showed any critical interest in the Elizabethan 
poet, though he gave evidence of his familiarity with the 
Faerie Queene by numerous quotations from it. Yet the 
fact that Jortin, Warton, Upton, and Church used a method 
which did not exist before Theobald, and which is almost 
identically the same as was used by the latter, forces the 
conclusion that they learned their handicraft from the sub- 
ject of Pope's satire. 

Not only as regards Spenser but also as regards other 
writers was the middle of the eighteenth century a period 
of unusual critical activity, during which the dramatists 
contemporary with Shakespeare came in for their share of 

Church appeared in 1758, in which the diHgence and utiUty of colla- 
tion, more especially by the latter of these gentlemen, are as obvious 
as they are important." After speaking of the "excellent illustrations 
of Upton" and "important remarks of Church," Todd places before 
us his own method, the same as we have been tracing: "My own notes 
on the several poems, which I have presumed to lay before the public, 
consist not only of regulations of the text; but also of explanations 
arising from some attention to the literature of the age in which Spenser 
Uved." 



THE PROGKESS OF THE METHOD 245 

attention. As early as 1744 the appearance of Dodsley's 
Select Collection of Old Plays gave notice that a part of the 
public was coming to some appreciation of EHzabethan 
drama. Since that footman-poet-pubUsher was in no way 
equipped for the office of editor, it is not strange that the 
dramas received little care, but the very fact that a publisher 
should think it to his profit to pubUsh such a work is indica- 
tive of the changing taste of the times. In the following 
decade critical editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben 
Jonson, and Massinger were attempted. 

With each of these three editions Theobald was in some 
way associated. His part in the edition of Beaumont and 
Fletcher has already been discussed, but it may be well to 
repeat some of the points made. While the work is "the 
first serious effort toward a reconstruction of the text," ^^ 
it is not satisfactory. Those plays that came under our 
editor's supervision show a much more careful collation than 
the others. While he introduced into the text a number of 
his conjectures — the value of some has never received suf- 
ficient recognition — he drew most of his corrections from 
the old copies, the worth of which he fully appreciated. 
Although at his death, Seward and Sympson received ''his 
valuable collection of old quartos," the remaining plays did 
not receive careful collation, and the license of emendation 
was indulged in to a much greater extent. The younger 
editors' ignorance of EHzabethan history, language, and 
literature caused them to emend where they should have 
explained, while they fell into the habit of collating only 
where there was some difficulty.^^ Yet the method they 
strove to follow was Theobald's, and their ill success was due 
to their own insufficiency. 

66 The Knight of the Burning Pestle, edited»by H. S. Murch, 1908, 
Yale Studies in English, xxxiii. Introduction, p. iv. 
" Murch, op. dt., p. iv. 



246 LEWIS THEOBALD 

The first critical edition of Ben Jonson appeared in 1756.^^ 
The editor, Peter Whalley, was a graduate of Oxford and 
vicar of Horley in Surrey; early in his career he had been 
a schoolmaster in Christ's Hospital. Although Whalley 
claimed that his edition was based on the foUo of 1611 and 
the old quartos, he made the same mistake Theobald made 
with Shakespeare ; he based his text upon the last printed 
edition, introducing into it the various readings drawn from 
the old copies, a procedure which militated against accurate 
collation. Furthermore, he recorded few variant readings, 
and did not always give a note when he deviated from the 
text.6» 

Whalley 's remarks on how to handle the text, remarks 
that have been styled ''very just,"^^ read so much like those 
given by Theobald that it is difficult not to suppose that 
his preface was largely modeled upon the preface to Shake- 
speare.'^^ He himself bears witness to the fact that his methods 
were Theobald's. He had obtained the latter's copy of 
Jonson with marginal notes: 

But altho the advantages of this copy were not so many as I had 
at first expected, it was a satisfaction to me to find that had Mr. 

^8 The Works oj Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with all 
the Former Editions and Corrected ; with Notes Critical and Explanatory. 
By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in Oxford. London. 
1756. See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VI, p. 470. 

69 See The Alchemist, edited by C. M. Hathaway, 1903, p. 10. 

'0 Idem, p. 10. 

^1 Whalley says his plan is to exhibit the correct text and explain 
all obscurities due to Jonson's peculiar habit of thought and to ob- 
scure allusions to the times. He claims the right of correcting flat 
nonsense especially where the emendation follows traces of the text, 
though he beUeves no emendation should be made to improve the author 
himself. He states that many allusions need no correcting, but can be 
explained by expounding the author by himself. He gives warning that 
some of his notes are introduced merely to show imitations. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 247 

Theobald published an edition of Jonson's works, he would have 
proposed the same plan, and executed in the manner that I have 
done." 

The notes bear out this statement. Many allusions are 
explained by references to the literature and customs of 
Jonson's time, while the meanings of many words are illus- 
trated by quotations from Jonson and his contemporaries. 
UnUke Theobald, Whalley seldom supports his emendations, 
which are sometimes introduced without notice, but they 
are few and unimportant. Yet his own words, together with 
the fact that he frequently makes use of material furnished 
by Theobald's Shakespeare,"^^ show whom he was imitating. 
In 1759 appeared the first modern edition of Massinger, 
ostensibly edited by Thomas Coxeter.^^ The latter was a 
student at Trinity College, Oxford, but removed to London 
in 1710. Here he became acquainted with the booksellers 
and collected materials for some biographies of the old poets. 
Having gathered together many old plays, he once enter- 
tained the idea of publishing a selection from them, a plan 
afterwards executed by Dodsley. Though he did not follow 
up his design, he put his old quartos to good use. When 
Theobald began work on the edition of Shakespeare, Coxeter 
made his acquaintance and assisted him with various black 
letter plays, an obUgation the former adequately acknowl- 

^2 Whalley, op. cit., vol. 1, preface, p. xxix. Besides receiving help 
from Zachary Grey, Whalley was assisted by Theobald's collaborators, 
Seward and Sympson. 

" Idem, vol. 1, pp. 39, 46, 77 and vol. 4, p. 8. 

'^ The Dramatic Works of Philip Massinger, Compleat in Four Vol- 
umes. Revised, Corrected, and all the various Editions Collated. By 
Thomas Coxeter, Esq., with Notes Critical and Explanatory, of various 
Authors. To which are prefixed Critical Reflections on the Old English 
Dramatic Writers. Addressed to David Garrick, Esq. ; London : Printed 
for T. Davies. 1761. The first edition was issued by Dell in 1759, 
and did not contain the "Critical Reflections" (written by Colman). 



248 LEWIS THEOBALD 

edged in his preface. At the time of his death in 1747 
Coxeter was engaged upon this edition of Massinger. 

Some years later a bookseller named Dell took over the 
incomplete work and gave it to the public. The preface 
bears the statement that Coxeter spared no diUgence in, 
maldng the text as correct as possible by conjecture and 
collation and had prepared ''several observations and notes 
for his intended edition," which were inserted. The reader 
is then assured that had the editor lived, he would have 
completed his design which would have met with a favorable 
reception from all persons of taste and genius. Thus it 
seems that about all for which Coxeter was responsible was 
the collation which wrung from unwilling Gifford an acknowl- 
edgment of the ''ignorant fidelity of Coxeter." ^^ In 
other respects Gifford was not so complimentary. He said 
that the editor did not have sufficient learning to correct 
corrupt passages; that his "conjectures are void aUke of 
ingenuity and probability, and his historical references at 
once puerile and incorrect." Had Coxeter's labors not been 
cut short, he doubtless would have supported his corrections 
with some evidence, and the absence of such evidence must 
have been responsible for DelFs confession that the correc- 
tions had been tacitly inserted in the text for fear notes would 
only interrupt the reader.^^ In a few places there are emenda- 
tions in Theobald's manner, while some of the explanations 
of words and allusions are fashioned in the standard mold.'^^ 

Had the work been completed by the original editor, no 
doubt it would have been a creditable performance. Coxeter 
had the materials necessary for a good edition and the ex- 
ample of his friend as to how to use them. As the edition 

^5 The Plays of Philip Massinger, edited by Gifford, 1805. Intro- 
duction, p. Ixvi. 

76 See vol. 4, p. 254. 

77 See vol. 2, p. 372, and vol. 4, pp. 44, 312. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 249 

stands, it is impossible to tell to whom belongs the credit or 
discredit of the work. There are practically no critical 
notes on the text, and all others are rather scant. A large 
part are concerned with interpretative criticism, while 
others content themselves with parallel passages showing 
imitations. Yet a number explain old customs and historical 
allusions, thus throwing some light on Massinger.^^ 

Throughout this period every attempt at critical work 
on English texts was sure to show Theobald's influence. 
Some critics fell short of his standard, others improved on 
his practice, but in every instance the outline of his method 
is discernible. Yet there has survived to the present day 
the belief that the eighteenth century constantly associated 
his name with dullness. It must be admitted that if reliance 
is placed upon the comments made by the editors of Shake- 
speare who followed Theobald, his reputation declined 
rapidly after his death. These men unfortunately chose 
from various causes to depreciate and slander their prede- 
cessor. Warburton for obvious reasons had no good word 
to say in behalf of his erstwhile friend. Johnson was under 
obligation to Warburton for a timely word of praise and 
naturally took his side. Capell, Steevens, and others 
followed in the path thus marked out for them, sustained 
by the increasing credence Pope's fame lent to his libels. 

Yet, for a considerable time after his death, Theobald's 
reputation was high, especially with scholars. Johnson 

^8 The preface affords an interesting example of the way Theobald's 
idea of an editor's duty was taken over by others: "'Tis true, the 
Business of an Editor is to amend such Passages that he finds corrupt, 
to explain what is obscure and difficult, and to mark the Beauties and 
Defects of Composition." Theobald had said, "The Science of Criti- 
cism, as far as it affects an Editor, seems to be reduced to these three 
Classes: the Emendation of corrupt Passages; the Explanation of 
obscure and diflacult ones; and an Inquiry into the Beauties and 
Defects of Composition." Preface to edition of Shakespeare, p. xl. 



250 LEWIS THEOBALD 

himself, in his Observations on Macbeth, 1745, had nothing 
but praise for the man he later attacked. The following 
year John Upton spoke highly of himJ^ In 1754 Zachary 
Grey singled him out to say that he had thrown a great deal 
of light on Shakespeare's obscurities.^^ Grey was of the 
opinion that the editor, "a, person seemingly in other 
respects very modest," treated Pope too harshly notwith- 
standing The Dunciad ; but he could not understand War- 
burton's treatment of Theobald. As late as 1765 Benjamin 
Heath, while speaking disparagingly of Shakespearean 
editors in general, made an exception of Pope's rival, saying 
that the public was under real and considerable obligation 
to him.^^ The same year Wilham Kenrick, in his review 
of Johnson's edition, treated Theobald with respect, while 
in his defense of the review he said that the critic was the 
only commentator on Shakespeare that had acquitted him- 
self with reputation. ^2 

It was not until the last half of the century was well under 
way that the satire of Pope and the slanders of other editors 
obscured his fame. Even then the very things for which 
he had been satirized won a complete triumph over The Dun- 
dad. The fact is apparent not only in the method employed 
by later critics, but in the definite stands some of them took. 
Johnson did not hesitate to attack Pope's ''dull duty of an 
editor " : '' The duty of a collator is indeed dull, yet Uke other 

^^ Critical Observations on Shakespeare, passim. 

*" Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, preface. 

8^ A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, preface. 

*2 Defence of Mr. Kenrick's Review of Dr. Johnson's Shakespeare, 
1766, p. 9. Seward spoke of Theobald as one "who is most obHged to 
Shakespeare, and to whom Shakespeare is most obUged of any man 
living," and affirms that he was unblasted by the Ughtning of Pope. 
Edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, preface. See also the preface 
to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756, where Theobald is indirectly 
complimented. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 251 

tedious tasks, is very necessary ; but an emendatory critick 
would ill discharge his duty, without qualities very different 
from duhiess." Especially did Pope's line "All such reading 
as was never read" arouse the ire of later scholars. Of this 
line Warton said. 

If Shakespeare is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the 
researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose, merit the 
thanks of genius and candour, not the satire of prejudice and 
ignorance. ^^ 

Farmer, though perpetually sneering at Theobald, was 
forced to the confession that, ''In the course of this disquisi- 
tion, you have often smiled at ' all such reading as was never 
read ' ; and possibly I may have indulged it too far : but 
it is the reading necessary for a comment on Shakespeare." ^* 
Strange as it may seem. Pope's characterization of Theobald 
was complacently accepted, yet the specific charges advanced 
by the satirist were denied. The editor was considered 
dull for the very offenses his calumniators were glad to 
commit. 

One reason why in the end Theobald's reputation was 
unable to overcome the misrepresentations of Pope lay in 
the fact that as his method became more general, its source 
was obscured. The generation who knew Theobald and 
his works realized his importance and patterned their own 
procedure after his. Their work in turn became new centers 
of influence, so that by the last quarter of the century the 
later tribe of critics considered the method anybody's. 
Not only was he deprived of the honor of formulating and 
practicing a method by which results could be obtained, but 
his own results were continually pillaged by critics, to whom 
have been attributed discoveries made many years before. 

^ Observations on the Fairie Queene, 1807, II, p. 319. 
*» D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, 1903, 
p. 214. 



252 LEWIS THEOBALD 

Theobald the editor disappeared; Theobald the dunce 
survived. 

Because Theobald's work ceased to be the actual model 
for later critics, it is unnecessary to trace the method any 
farther. Yet it has come down to the present day and con- 
stitutes the basic principles of modern editing. In the 
construction of an accurate text — the first duty of an 
editor — collation and the recording of variant readings are 
the most important considerations. Theobald first em- 
phasized and established the importance of collation, and 
was the first to take any steps toward noticing variant read- 
ings. Emending has fallen from the high place it once held, 
but the imperative need of it is sometimes recognized, and 
in such cases the only method entitled to respect is Theo- 
bald's. He placed the science on the firmest foundation of 
which it is susceptible. In the explanation of a text the 
critical editor of to-day only enlarges on the earlier pro- 
cedure. He must acquaint himself with the history, customs, 
and manners of the age in which his author lived ; above all, 
he must study the literature and language of that age. This 
Theobald was the first to do. As for the parallel passages, 
which the first editor used on all occasions, and which 
flourished so luxuriantly throughout the rest of the century, 
their need is now largely supplied by dictionaries,^^ without 
which, however, it would be necessary to return to the 
old plan. The scholar of to-day has every aid to investi- 
gation, so that his research is naturally more thorough and 
his feeling for accuracy more pronounced ; still, take away 
what Theobald contributed to the science of editing, and 
little is left. 

8^ Johnson is generally given the credit for inaugurating the method 
of illustrating the meaning of a word by quotations. He probably 
took it over from the notes of critics and editors who followed the 
example set by Shakespeare Restored. 



THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 253 

To Bentley, however, really belongs the credit for stimu- 
lating textual work in English, and in some part for formu- 
lating the method. ^^ Theobald's treatment of collation and 
variant readings was derived from his study of the great 
scholar, while his emendatory notes were closely modeled 
upon the other critic's. In explanatory notes the parallelism 
is not so close, owing to the dissimilarity of their tasks, but 
the same spirit that informs Bentley's work is apparent in 
the Shakespearean annotations. In both there is the same 
unwillingness to deal in random guesses and unfounded 
hearsay, the same reliance on reasoning based upon fact, 
upon evidence gathered from wide investigation and focused 
upon obscurity; a spirit first seen in the members of the 
young Royal Society, with whom Bentley was closely as- 
sociated, and who, in spite of many freakish experiments 
and outlandish notions, broke away from tradition and 
superstition, and sought the reassuring conclusions drawn 
from observed fact and logical thought. 

^ The late Professor Fliigel was certainly wrong in saying "Shakes- 
perean scholarship, from Rowe to M alone, does not even find a standard 
of textual criticism to be applied to Shakespeare's works: Bentley's 
influence is not felt on this field." This is the very field in which 
Bentley's influence was most potent, as we would expect from the 
emphasis he himself placed on textual criticism. See Fliigel Memorial 
Volume, Univ. of Cal. Publications, 1916, pp. 18, 20, 30. 



APPENDIX A 

''Bibliotheca: A Poem, Occasioned by the sight of a 
Modern Library. With some very useful episodes and 
digressions," is to be found in the third volume, page 19, 
of A Select Collection of Poems. 8 vols. London. 1780, 
printed for and by J. Nichols. In a footnote Nichols says, 
''This is ascribed to Dr. King upon conjecture only. It was 
published in 1712, the winter before he died, by his book- 
seller, inscribed to his patron, and is very much in his manner. 
His name is accordingly affixed to the author's notes." 
It is now given to Thomas Newcomb, though on what 
grounds I do not know. It seems to be written very much 
in King's manner, especially when we compare this quotation 
with that from Some Account of Horace's Behaviour, given in 
Chapter II. 

The idea of the poem was evidently derived from The 
Battle of the Books. The poet goes into a modern hbrary, 
and, the books impersonating their authors, the poet dis- 
cusses them one by one ; Defoe especially comes in for some 
hard knocks. Nichols (p. 65) points to the similarity 
between the Oblivion of this poem and the Goddess of The 
Dunciad, and adds that there are many more points of 
similarity. He then compares the first two lines of the 
passage quoted with these two in The Dunciad. 
Bk. IV, fine 219, 

*' Tis true. On words is still our whole debate 
Disputes of Me or Te, of aut or at." 

Compare the following selections also : 



APPENDIX A 255 



Bibliotheca : 

Beneath a dark and gloomy cell 
A lazy Goddess chose to dwell 



Obhvion was her dreaded name ; 
On verse and laudanum she feeds, 

Each weeping wall bedew 'd appears 
With Cloe's sighs, and Strephon's tears ; 
Sad dirges, breathing Lover's pain, 
And soft complaints of Virgins slain : 
While Female Sonnets, Poet's Themes, 
Beaux Stratagems, Projectors' Dreams, 
Around the lonely structure fly, 
Slumber awhile, and gently die. 

Dundad : 

Here stood her opiimi, here she nursed her owl. 

Hence hymning Tyburn's elegiac lay, 

Hence the soft sing-song on CeciUa's day, 

Sepulchral lyes our holy walls to grace 

And New-year-Odes and all the Grubstreet race." 

Other parallels between the two satires could be shown. 



APPENDIX B 

The OdeSf Epodes, and Carmen Secular e of Horace. In 
Latin and English; with a Translation of Dr. Bentley^s Notes. 
To which are added Notes upon Notes. In 24 Parts complete. 
By several Hands. London; Printed for Bernard Lintott 
at the Cross-Keys, between the two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet, 
MDCCXIII. 

This work is a collection of twenty-six pamphlets, the first 
two being a translation of Bentley's dedication and ''The 
Life of Horace with Bentley's Preface, Latin and EngUsh." 
The other twenty-four are devoted to a translation of Horace 
and Bentley's notes, to which are added the notes on notes. 
These last are rather abundant at first, but toward the end 
become short and scarce, many odes being passed over 
entirely. Of the twenty-four parts, seventeen appeared in 
1712 and seven the following year. Monk thinks they 
were issued fortnightly. 

As regards authorship, Monk says {Life of Bentley, vol. 1, 
p. 319): "There appears once to have been a notion that 
the author was no other than Bentley's old enemy, Dr. King. 
A copy of the book, in an old binding, shown to me by Mr. 
Evans, the eminent book seller of Pall-Mali, is lettered 
King's Horace. But Dr. King was dead some time before 
the completion of the work. The writer might have been 
another person of the same name." Now it is generally 
attributed to William Oldis worth (Notes and Queries, 1865, 
vol. 2, p. 229; and article on Oldisworth in Dictionary of 
National Biography). A translation of the poems alone, 



APPENDIX B 257 

issued in 1719 as the second edition, bears Oldisworth's 
name as translator. On this evidence, however, I hardly 
think it safe to attribute the whole work to him. The title 
page of the 1713 edition says specifically ''By several Hands." 
It seems natural that Oldisworth should have been selected 
to translate the poetry, for Lintot says (Carruther's Life 
of Pope, p. 141) ''he translated an ode of Horace the quickest 
of any man in England." Nor do I think it improbable that 
King translated the notes and wrote the notes upon notes. 
He did not die until late in December, and, according to 
Monk's calculation of two weeks for each part, the work 
must have been completed some three months later. 
It seems possible that King might have completed his task 
before Oldisworth had done his, since it would certainly 
take longer to translate the odes than Bentley's notes and 
since the notes on notes are very scarce toward the end. 
The notes are in King's manner and contain allusions to 
his works. Bentley is called BentivogUo (Pt. I. p. 13), a 
name used in the Dialogues of the Dead, and a similar descrip- 
tion of him is given. There are two references (Pt. 4, 
p. 6, Pt. 15, p. 31) to the Trinity College Buttery which 
figured in King's Some Account of Horace's Behaviour, and 
a picture of Bentley which must have been made from 
the same plate used in the Some Account. One note (Pt. I. 
p. 23) reads much like Useful Transactions, and the doggerel 
poems scattered through the notes are the same in pur- 
pose, spirit, and nature as those in the Transactions. 



APPENDIX C 

SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS OF THEOBALD 

The originals of the following letters, with a few excep- 
tions, are to be found in the British Museum, Egerton 
MSS. 1956, contained in a small volume labeled "Letters 
of L. Theobald and Dr. Warburton." They supplement 
those given by Nichols in Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
pp. 189-656, beginning with December, 1729, and extend- 
ing to the fall of 1736. Nichols said he obtained the originals 
of the letters he published from a gentleman who had 
received them from Theobald's son. In this case the 
letters herein printed must have remained in Warburton's 
hands, a conclusion further supported by the fact that there 
is contained among them a statement in Warburton's hand- 
writing to the effect that he had returned many of Theo- 
bald's letters. In April, 1730, the latter wrote for his letters, 
and the following month acknowledged their receipt, prom- 
ising at the same time to return them, which promise must 
not have been fulfilled. There are four more of Theobald's 
letters, all containing notes on Shakespeare, given in the 
Illustrations, which Warburton must have returned at some 
later date, as well as five of Warburton's which Theobald 
missed when he sent back his friend's correspondence in 
1736. 

Warburton made it a point to return all his friend's 
manuscripts which contained notes on Shakespeare. For 
that reason there is little Shakespearean criticism to be 
found in the following letters, a fact much to be deplored. 
Yet they have some value in the light they shed on Theo- 
bald's feehngs and activities in the years following the 



APPENDIX C 259 

Dunciad, and especially in making clear the cause of the 
break between the two friends. 

I have tried to print the letters as Theobald wrote them, 
making no effort to correct punctuation, capitalization 
and the like. In the Greek quotations I have not sought 
to emend in accent and form. I have made few omis- 
sions, and those only in cases where the passages are already 
in print. To each omission attention is called in a foot- 
note, and the place specified where it can be found. With 
a few exceptions, which are noted, all the letters are ad- 
dressed to Warburton. 



[To Sir Hans Shane] 

1 Sir, 

I presume on the priviledge of a Neighbour to inclose 
herewith One of my Proposals, & beg the Honour of yo'' 
Name to grace one part of my List. In your own Pro- 
fession Sir, I have been indulg'd w*^. the Encouragem*. 
of D^ Mead, poor D^ Friend, D. Pellet &c having a par- 
donable Ambition, as I hope, of desiring such Names as 
may do my Subscription most Credit. Forgive Sir my not 
personally attending you, & please to impute it to a Fear 
of being too intruding; as I never had the Happiness of 
Access to you. If you please to think me worthy of your 
Commands, I shall with great Pride embrace the Favour, 
& esteem myself 

s^ 

your most obliged, as well 
as obedient humble 
Wyan's Court Serv^ 

Great Russell Street Lew. Theobald 

Mond. 5 Aug^ 1728. 

» British Museum, Sloane Mss. 4049, f. 214. 



260 APPENDIX C 

(4). p. 71.2 

The fairest grant is the Necessity :] I don't clearly com- 
prehend, at least satisfy myself in the connection of This. 

(5). p. 73. 

1 wonder that Thou (being as thou say'st thou art, &c) 
As being born under Saturn may carry two different In- 
fluences, I am a little doubtfull concerning the Exposition 
or the Truth, of the Text here. Does he mean, I wonder 
y* thou, being born under such a malevolent planet, should'st 
give such good & moral counsel ? — Or are we to read — 
I wonder not that thou &c & then we may expound, I don't 
wonder, y* Thou being born under such a heavy, plegmatic 
Aspect, should'st be so moral in thy Advice, but I cannot 
hide what I am &c. 

(6). p. 74. 

Being entertain'd for a Perfumer, as I was smoaking in 
a musty Room.] This is ag* the Authority of the 3 oldest 
Editions, w*'^ all read more rightly to y® Poet's Intention — as 
I was smoaking a musty Room. i.e. fumigating, perfuming, 
taking off the ill scent. 

(7). p. 77. 

Bene. Well, I would you did like me.] This and the 
two subsequent little Speeches, y* are given to Benedict, 
I think ought to be placed to Balthazar. Pedro, you will 
observe talks to Hero : Balth : to Margaret : Ursula to 
Antonio; & then Beatrice & Benedict advance their Dia- 
logue. 

2 The beginning and end of this letter are missing, but its date lies 
between November 29 and December 4, 1729. Its proper place in 
Nichols is after p. 299, vol. 2. The play commented on is Much Ado 
about Nothing. 



APPENDIX C 261 

(8). p. 81. 

Huddling jeast upon jeast, with such IMPOSSIBLE 
conveyance upon me, that I stood Hke a Man at a Mark, 
with a whole Army shooting at me ;] This impossible con- 
veyance communicates no sensible Idea to me, & I have of 
old suspected it should be — with such IMPASSABLE 
conveyance, i.e. not to be put by, parried, avoided. We 
have a sentence very near to This in Sense in Twelfth Night. 

p. 232. And he give me th ^ STUCK in with such a 

MORTAL MOTION that it is INEVITABLE. 

(9). p. 83. 
Claud. And so she doth, Cousin. 1 Should not this be 
Beatr. Good Lord, for Alliance J rather. Good Lord, 

our Alliance! i.e. 

how presently are we related, now you are going to marry my 

Kinswoman. 



I have suspected 
this should be, — 



(10). p. 84. 

She is never sad but when she sleeps, 
and not ever sad then ; for I have heard 
my Daughter say, She hath often dreamt I She hath often 
of Unhappiness. &c. J dream'd of an 

happiness, &c i.e. 

She hath often had 
merry Dreams, ergo as is premis'd. She is not ever sad when 
She sleeps. 

(11). p. 88. 
We'll fit the kid-fox with a pennyworth.] With a 

penny worth 
of what ? I don't well take his Allusion. 

3 MS. is torn. 



262 APPENDIX C 

(12). ibid. 

Note this before my Notes. There's not a Note of mine 
that's worth the noting. 

Pedr. Why these are very Crotchets that he 1 Sure from 

speaks J Balthazar's 

Note Notes foresooth, & nothing own Words it 

must be — and 
noting. 
(13). p. 91. 

O She tore the Letter into a thousand halfpence] This 
is a very whimsical Expression, yet I think I understand 
it. Does he not mean into a thousand Pieces of the same 
Bigness. There is a passage in AS YOU LIKE IT p. 350, 
that favours this explanation — There were none principal : 
they were all Uke ONE ANOTHER as HALF-PENCE 
are. And both these Passages seem to allude to the Old 
Piece of money that was struck with a cross in such a Manner, 
that it might be spUt into Halves or Quarters, to pass for 
Half-pence or Farthings. 

Now as my Queries on the second Act are finish'd here, 
give me leave. Dear S^ to fill up the Remaining Paper w*^ 
Matter occasionally necessary. I confessed the Rec*. of 
Two of yours by mine of y® 27*^ Instant ; & yesterday yo''. 
3"*. arriv'd on TIMON all glorious Dissertation and Emenda- 
tion! If this be deviating, 'tis to me delightfull Excursion; 
& gives even Business the Air of Entertainment. Yet while 
I wish for the Repetition of such Discourses, I cannot but 
look on them w*^ Emulation ; I might almost be pardon'd, 
if I said w*^ Envy. I find myself so obscur'd by Inequality ; 
You shew such a Fluency of Thought & Expression, such a 
clearness of Ideas, & such a Compass of general Reading, 
y*. I can much easier admire than express my admiration. 
Make no rash Vows, that you will start out no more ; permit 
me both to be pleas'd w^^. Order, & ravish'd with EscapadeSf 



APPENDIX C 263 

as Dryden expresses it. Nor grudge me, Dear S""., the 
benefit of y"" Explanations, by paying a compliment to my 
narrow Sagacity — But how shall I sufficiently thank you 
for that overkind Opinion you are pleas'd to entertain of 
my Task in Hand? Believe, S'"., I will faithfully consult 
my Reputation as well as private Honour, in this Respect ; 
that if I live to any little portion of Posterity, I shall be so 
just to confess you One of my Supporters in y^. Rank. & take 
a Pride to acknowledge both what Emendations I am in- 
debted to you for, & where I have the pleasure of your 
concurrence to Mine. 

But as our Author's Hamlet says — Something too 
much of This. — 

The small compass of paper I have left shall be employ'd 
to inform you how I had cur'd three passages in Timon of 
w*'^ you have given me your Emendations. 

p. 117. 

Serving of Becks &c] You ingeniously correct serring 
of becks. I wish the phrase be not a little too quaint. I 
have read, w*^. very trivial Deviation from the Letter, 
Scruing of Backs, & jutting out of Bums. For Apemantus, 
I think, is observing on the unreasonable Distortions 
practis'd in their Congees. 

p. 130. 

Of the same piece is ev'ry Flatterer's SPORT.] You 
say COAT. & This is countenanc'd by piece. I had read, 
(as, the World's Soul, are the Words in the preceding Verse) 
Of the same piece is ev'ry Flat'rer's SPIRIT : i.e. all Flatt" 
are of a piece one with another. 

p. 168. 

— let him take his TASTE]. You read tatch. This 
word is in Skinner, but I'm afraid a little too obselete for 



264 APPENDIX C 

Sh. I had read — let him take his HASTE, i.e. let him 
make use of his best Speed. As in Haml : p. 314. Take 
thy fair hour Laertes : i.e. make Use of the Hour y* favours 
y*" Embarking. And Plutarch telling this very Story of 
Timon in the Life of M. Anthony (& our Author you know- 
is very faithfull where he borrows :) seems to give a Sort of 
Authority for this Reading, where part of Timon's Words 
are ; To the End that if any more among you have a Mind 
to make the same Use of my Tree they may do it SPEEDILY 
before it is destroy 'd. 

I have yet a scrip left & therefore I'll trouble you w*^. 2 
Passages that I think are notoriously corrupted in the 
Pointing, a little deeper in this play, & w^^ I wonder have 
escap'd you. 



My dear Friend, 

Pardon me for once, that I am obUg'd to give you the Ex- 
pence of a Letter, without our delightfuU Affair going on. 
I thought it however my Duty to give you a Line, y*. I 
might not seem remiss where you are so kindly diligent. 
But I flatter myself y*. you will not be displeased to know, 
y*. Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal ; & y* my whole present 
Time from Morning to Night, is employ'd in a Copy by 
his Royal Highness's Command. By Thursday's post 
notwithstanding I hope to fetch up Arrears. Excuse for 
the present, strong as my Heart is, the tir'd Hand of Dearest 

s^ 

y. most affectionate 
& ever oblig'd Friend & hum^^®. 
Serv*. 

Lew: Theobald. 
Wyan's Court 
10 Febry. 1729. [1730] 



APPENDIX C 265 

14 Feb. 1729. [1730] My Dear Sir, I have now finished 
this part of my Task, & have given you all the Remarks, 
Conjectures & Emendations I have made upon y* Author 
whom I have read for your Service. Your Merit & Goodness 
make me wish them of more Worth I have now nothing to 
do but to follow you, & w* Emendations, or Conjectures, 
or Explanations I shall hit upon will arise from the Hints 
your Queries will afford. 

I am. Dearest Sir, 
y'' most sincere & affectionate 
Friend. 



Dear Sir 

I am now to acknowledge the Rec* of yours (No 32) of 
the 13 Instant, & to thank you for yo'" kind promise of 
reading over M"" P's preface for Me. The question of 
Shakespeare's Learning, I beheve you'll find so very doubt- 
fully decided by him, that the argument will put you in 
Mind of — Jean a dance mieux que Pierre, et Pierre a dance 
mieux que Jean; etc — And now, Dear S'", that we have 
on each side run through all the 8 vols. I must beg the 
favour that you will set what mark you think fit on my 
poor Sett of letters, & transmit 'em to me ; & I will promise 
faithfully, they shall be returned again to you, if you think 
fit, et si res tanti est. As I could keep no copies, it will be 
impossible, in so long an intercourse to recollect all my 
reasons for the Conjectures I have submitted to you; and 
to have them in hand to compare with your answers, will 
be absolutely necessary to my task in hand. I beg you 
will favour me with a letter of advice, how, & when, you are 
pleased to send them. You once asked me about Tonson's 
Greek Edition of Plutarch ; He has now advertis'd the pub- 



266 APPENDIX C 

lication of it — By the way, that gentleman & I are coming 
to a Treaty together. He has been w*^ my friend, the 
Lady De la Warre, & submitts to make her the Arbitra- 
tress of Termes betwix us for my publishing an edition of 
Shakespeare. He says, a brace of hundreds shan't break 
agreement. This is talking boldly ; & I wish heartily his 
name was John. I shall know the Issue of this Proposition 
in about a fortnight ; & so soon as known, w*^ great pleasure 
communicate it. These things premis'd, you will indulge me 
in a few conjectures, (to fill up,) which I am always pleased 
to submit to you. You have not Locrine, you say, by you ; 
but the passage, I am going to amend, will ask no Reference, 
I think for the certainty of my conjecture. 



Act 3. Sec 5. 

The Arm-strong offspring of the DOUBTED KNIGHT, 

Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty Son, 

That tamed the Monsters of the threefold World ; etc. 

The good editors that passed this stuff unsuspected, have 
had so little of the Herculean Spirit in them, subduing 
monsters, 'tis plain is none of their office. The Doubted 
Knight, I make no question, they look on content for Am- 
phitryon ; either as his fatherly Pretensions to Hercules 
were to be disputed, by Reason of the Pains Jupiter took 
in begetting him : or as the epithet doubted hero, by an 
apocope warrantable enough among the old English 
poets, might stand for redoubted; the valiant renown'd 
Amphitryon. — But, in my opinion, Hercules is sufficiently 
distinguished by being called Alcmena's mighty son; & 
therefore we may spare the Mention of his Father. But can 
we throw out the Father, without making the Blank Verse 
halt for it? I'll venture by the alteration of one Mistaken 
Letter, & the Rejection of another, which is but an Inter- 



APPENDIX C 267 

loper, to restore a Reading truly Poetical & consonant to 
the Tradition concerning the Begetting of Hercules. As 
thus. 

The valiant offspring of the Doubled Nights 
Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty son, etc. 

As M"" Rowe was so well acquainted with poetical story, 
tis much, methinks, he did not remember this noted cir- 
cumstance of the Fable, that Juppiter for the fuller enjoy- 
ment of his pleasure with Alcmena, ordered two nights to 
be clapt together, & that the sun should not rise at the 
expected hour. Seneca, or whoever else has left us the 
Latin Tragedy of Agamemnon, is express to this point 
— Roscidae Noctis gemnavit horas, jussitque ; Phoebum 
tardius celeres agitare currus, — Propert. 1 .2. El. 22. Jupiter 
Alcmenae geminas requieverat Arctos Et Coelum noctu bis 
sine rege fuit. Martian : Capella speaks of these two nights 
clap'd together, & of Hercules in his cradle strangling the 
Serpants, as Testimonies of his Divine Origin. In ortu 
HercuUs geminatae Noctis obsequium, serpentesque ; idem 
parvus, oblidens, vim numinis approbavit — And S^ Jerom 
against Vigilantius says, that Jupiter coupled two nights 
caressing Alcmena, that Hercules might derive the more 
strength & vigour. In Alcmenae adulterio duas nodes 
Jupiter Copulavit, ut magnae fortitudinis Hercules nascere- 
tur. I might multiply quotations, but these seem sufficient 
to justify my Conjectures. Glancing over the 2"^ p* of 
Henry IV p. 303. I started a suspicion upon the following 
passage : — 

When your own Percy, when my heart-dear Harry 
Threw many a Northward Look, to see his father 
Bring up his powers, but he did LONG in vain! — 

* The emendation is adopted and ascribed to Steevens in Tucker 
Brooke's edition of the Shakespeare apocrypha. 



268 APPENDIX C 

I think the turn & elegance of the Sentiment, to say nothing 
of the common usage of our poet, determine that we should 
read; — but he did LOOK in vain! When I made this 
emendation, a passage of Aristophanes immediately re- 
curred to my memory, upon which I have ventured to make 
a conjecture. Thesmoph. v. 853. 

lAAOS yeyevTjfjLai TpoadoKoJv 6 8'ov8eTO). Mnesilochus, 
who is under guard and under terrible apprehensions of 
being severely mauled by the women for intruding into 
their mysteries very earnestly expects Euripedes to come 
to his rescue; & complains that he has almost turned his 
eyes a-Squint, with thus expecting him. Keuster, you see, 
determines the passage to be corrupt; because expecta- 
tion never made any man Squint. He would therefore sub- 
stitute 1t02 yeyevrjiiaL — the use of which phrase in 
his sense, I confess, he very satisfactorily supports. I 
would only observe that this learned man, when he but few 
years before published his Suidas, & met with this word 
under the article dj^e^epe — Td iiev avTos rjv vtto <i)0^ov — 
Scil. Partim vero a Timore exsiccatus, is for Changing it 
into avkois ', mutus prae Timore, Vulgata eiiim Lectio inepta 
mihi videtur. I agree with him that litterally, expectation 
never made any Man Squint : but, in expecting we may 
turn our Eyes so long one Way, thro' Eagerness of looking 
out for the expected Object that we may strain the Nerves 
so as to squint, till we unbend & recover them to their 
right Tone. Again, IXXos possesses not only all the Copies 
of Aristophanes but of Suidas too, who quotes a part of 
this very Verse. IXXos yeyhrjuaL 6 5' ovdewoi. My Suspicion 
then dear Sir is that if there be any Corruption, it may be 
on the Word irpoaboKOiv, which is not quoted by Suidas. 
Might not Aristophanes possibly have wrote? IXXos 
yeykvntioii IIPOSAPAKfiN 6 5' ovbtTrm. Conversis ad eum 
intente ocuHs, Strabus fact us Sum : Ille vero nusquam adhuc 



APPENDIX C 269 

apparet. irpoa8epx^(T6eL you know is a very emphatic Verb, 
& I need not incumber you with Proofs of its Usage in this 
Signification, particularly with the Dramatic Writers — And 
now I am in for It expect to be plagued with a little more 
Greek. 

The Pleasure you say, my Explanation of Suidas gave you, 
about Sophocles declaiming for a Chorus to be granted to 
some of Thespis & Choerilus's Pieces, invites me to trouble 
you with another Attempt I have made upon that Author in 
which I think, I can both correct & explain him. I wish my 
Emendation were upon a more decent Subject ; but where 
the cause of Learning is concerned & Modesty preserv'd 
as far as may be, I hope, we need not stand on Niceties — 
$ANH2 h TOLS 6p<f)LXo1s elarjvexOv o (f>0LVT]s, aldolov ex(j^v TrepLTrjv 
nTPHN — What a drole Figure have we here represented 
to us in the Statue of a Deity, Penem habentis JUXTA 
NATES! Methinks considering how near Neighbours these 
Parts are in their Situation, there is nothing particular 
enough in such an Image, y* it should deserve to stand 
recorded on that Account. I do not much admire, that 
this Passage escaped the Suspicion of the learned Keuster 
in so long a Task as republishing this whole Lexicon : 
opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum : but I am surprized 
that D'" Bentley should let it shp without Notice ; who, in 
his Epistle to D'" Mill, has been so copious in speaking of 
Phanes, Metis & Ericepaios. But before I proceed to my 
Emendation, let us examine by the way who this Deity 
called Phanes was ; & we shall find him to be Apollo or the 
Sun. 0a^atos 6 AttoXXcoj/, says Hesichius. And Macrobius 
in his Saturnal. line 1. c 17; Pleriq; autem a specie et 
nitore Phoebum : i.e. KaSapov \ainrp6v dictum putant; item 
Phaneta appellant, aTro rod (f)alveLv; et (pavatov, eTretSi) (palverai 
veos. Again the same Deity who in some places was called 
Phanes was also called Priapus, Orpheus, or Onomacritus, 
in his hymns. 



270 APPENDIX C 

Kara koctimp 
XafXTTpov iiycov <f)aos ayvov, a<f) ov ere ^A'NHTA 

H de nPI'HnON avaKTa. 

A.nd by the Egyptians, Orus. Suidas, in -KpLairos — to ayoKfia 

Tov irpLcnrov, rod ^pov Trap' At7i;7rTtots KeKKrjfxevov 

ravTov Kai ropde HAIfl do^a^ovac. But let US see how the 
Lexicographer describes to us the Statue of this Priapus, 
or Egyptian Orus: h ry de^ia cKijirrpov Karkxov diaavei Trap' 
avTov evTerafxevoVj 5t6rt ra KeKpvpifieva ev rfj yp <T'^'<^PP'O.Ta 0aj^epa 
Kadi(TT7](jL. Which the Latin Translator of Chartarius, 
De Imaginibus Deorum, has thus rendered. Dextra 
Sceptrum continebat, perinde ac Dominus omnium 
esset, quae hie oriuntur : SINISTRA autem P U- 
D E N D A tenebat nam gemmalis Virtus ab eo proficisci 
credebatur — Ger. Vossius has commented thus upon 
this passage. De Idolotria I.2.C.7. Ex quo loco eadem 
cognoscimus, cur Priapus, hoc est H O R U S sive sos, 
manu una Sceptrum, A S T E R A rubentem ilium ac peda- 
lem teneat FASCINUM: Nempe Priori significatur 
SoHs Imperium ac Potestas in Orbem universam. Altero 
autem notatur vis Solis generativa, quae quia fit longe 
maxima ; eo commodissime visa est denotari membri 
magnitudine. Now, here is not the least Notice of this 
Orus, Penem JUXTA NATES habente, sed ilium 
MANU tenente. From these authorities therefore, I 
think, I shall be sufficiently warranted to correct Suidas 
thus in (l)av7]s — ela-qvexOr} 6 (l)avr]s, alboiov exoiv wapa ttjv 
'jrvyiJLTjv. Scil. In Pugno (sive in manu constricta) virilia 
tenens. And again where he says in the third article of the 
Word nPIAnOS — elxe 8e to AIAOION eirdvco els ttjv Trvyijv; 
(which Keuster renders habebat autem Penem erectum, 
& AEmilius Portus, habebat autem Pudendam Superne 



APPENDIX C 271 

JUXTA NATES) surely we must read HTrMHN, 
tenebat autem virilia Sursum in Manu. For I confess I 
am at a loss to understand the other Expression in the 
Greek. Plutarch I remember, in his Discourse concerning 
Isis & Osiris, speaking of this Statue of Orus which was set 
up at Coptos in Egypt, describes the figure as not handling 
its own Nudities, but as holding in its hand exsecta Typhonis 
viriHa. — But Suidas ever copied the author before him. 

I am, Dearest S"" 

Yo'" most affectionate & obliged 

Friend, & humble Servant 
Wyans Court Lew : Theobald 

25 Apr. 1730. 



Dear S^ 

I thank you most heartily for the Letter I reced by Yes- 
terday's Post. The Emendations in it are as certain, as 
they are accurate & ingenious — Herewith attends you 
the volume of Shakespeare's Poems ; & my poor Attempt 
in Manuscript. I am afraid the Obliterations in the 5*^ 
Act will give you some little Trouble in the Reading; but 
I hope, you will be able to make them out. Pray, D'". S''., 
be not tender or partial in y'". Censure. I cannot judge 
properly for myself ; but should be very sorry to hear when 
tis too late to correct, that Something is Extravagant, 
This passage puerile & That ridiculous; &c. Tis in y® 
power of y'" Friendship to secure me from these Fears ; & 
the free Exercise of that Power will much encrease the 
obligations of 

Dearest S'". 

Y'^ most affectionate Friend 
Wyan's Court. & humble servant 

Tuesd. 12 May 1730 Lew : Theobald. 



272 APPENDIX C 

Dear S^ 

Inclosed I return yo"" Tryal of Col. Charteris,^ & the 
Play of Pericles, w^^ you were so kind to say, tho' bad you 
would take the Trouble of reading over w*^. a strict Eye; 
& I am 

Y^ most affectionate & oblig'd 
Friend & humble serv*. 
Wensday morn^ Lew. Theobald. 

20 May 1730. 



Dear S^ 

I am vastly concernM y*. I have been so unfortunate to 
miss the pleasure of y"". Company no less than three times 
lately, when you did me the Favour of a Calling. For fear 
of the like Unhappiness on my Side, pray be so kind to 
appoint when it best sorts w*^. yo^ Leisure to give me 
an Hour, & I will take care to reserve Myself from all trifling 
Avocations : being most sincerely, 

Dear S^ 
y. most affectionate & 
obliged Friend & humble 
Wyan's Court. Serv.* 

25 May 1730. Lew. Theobald. 

I am indebted for yo'" accurate Animadversions on Orestes ; 
but I'm afraid you have been sparing to its Faults, And 
touch'd them w*^. the Pencil of a Friend. 

5 Francis Charteris (1675-1732), a noted rake and guilty of every 
sin in the decalogue, started his career as a soldier, but after being 
expelled from the army again and again, turned to gambling, by which 
he made an immense fortune. He was considered a symbol of vice 
and as such figures in Pope's poems and Hogarth's Progress of a Rake. 
His trial for rape in 1730, to which the above title refers, attracted much 
attention. He and Shakespeare are incongruous company. 



APPENDIX C 273 

« DearS^ 

Fancying the repeated Showers Yesterday would indulge 
our Town w*^ one day more of yo"" Company, I call'd at 
Squire's, & found my Suspicions confirmed : and meant to 
have taken a second Leave, had I been happy enough to 
have found you at home. Meeting with the Volume, 
w^^ attends this, ready bound, I take the Freedom to send 
it, & beg you'll take an absolute Freedom of censuring its 
Weaknesses, in our ensueing Correspondence. All good 
Wishes most sincerely wait you, 

from 

Dearest S"". 
y. most affectionate & obUged 
Friend & humble Serv*. 
Lew : Theobald. 
Wyan's Court 
Thursd. 11 June, 1730. 



« Dear S^ 

I received the pleasure of yours on Monday last which 
I designed to have answerd my self this night but that my 
blindness has led me into the worst Mischance that ever 
befell me for walking apace on tuesday night I did not see 
a set of railes sow tumbhng over them with force broke my 
Wright arme and am now confined to my bed where I am 
afraid I must do Penance for at least a week longer. I 
thank God I have as yet scaped any symptoms of a fever 
and live low in order to prevent one. I can only now beg 
the favour that you will continue to throw your Eye over 
Shakespeare Restored, and mark freely all that appeares 
any thing amiss to you. You will be so good to let me 

^ This letter is in another's handwriting. 



274 APPENDIX C 

conclude now because I am forced to trouble a female 

hand to subscribe myself, 

Dear S^ 

Your most affectionate 
friend and obliged Humble 
Servant. 

Wyans Court 

July y^ 2.1730 L. Theobald. 



^ Dear S^ 

I received the favour of yours of the 7*^ Instant, and 
should not have troubled you with another Epistle by 
proxy, but that I have your Commands to let you know 
the progress of my Recovery. I thank you for your kind 
cautions against lying a-bed and low Living ; but I confined 
myself to the first but three days, & have since that time 
been allow' d a temperate Refreshment of wine. The most 
unlucky Circumstance that has attended this Accident, 
is, that the next day I was sent for by Lady Delawarr, 
who had that morning seen M"". Tonson. What was the 
Substance of their Conference I yet know not, for the next 
day my Lady took flight into the Country for the Summer : 
but I have directions where to write to her, and in a short 
time shall be able to inform you what Measures I am to 
take. My Confinement at home gives me no Opportunity 
of entertaining you with any news either from the great 
world, or the World of Letters. I have only to tell you 
that the Grubstreet continues to make a devil of our frind 
Moore. ^ They have placed him in too Ridiculous a light by 

"^ This letter is in another's handwriting. 

* James Moore-Smythe (1702-34), a member of the "Concanen 
Club," is best known by his Rival Modes, to which Theobald furnished 



APPENDIX C 275 

inditing a whole Letter to him from Worm-powder More, 
who calls him-self his Uncle, & requires him as a mad-man 
to put himself under his care ; & cautions him against fall- 
ing under the hands of a Graduate Physitian, who wants 
the Management of him. They besides renew the charge 
of Cowardice so strongly against him, that, I confess, I 
should chuse to have two broken arms rather than be so 
stigmatized in print ; but no more of him in present : if 
I have not tired you, I am sure I have my scribe, so will 
at once dismiss her by subscribing myself 

Dearest S"". 

Your most affectionate 
Wyans Court Friend & Obliged Humble 

14 July 1730. Servant 

L. Theobald. 
P.S. You will perceive, dear S'". the above letter was writ 
a full week ago ; but by negligence, or forgetfulness, of my 
family was omitted to be put in the post House. I hope 
my arme continues to mend gradually. 



Dear S^ 

I received the pleasure of yours of y® 19*^ of last Month ; 
w*'^ was a great Satisfation, because from your Silence, Both 
M"". Concanen & I fear'd you might be ill. I deferred ac- 
knowledging the Receipt of this Favour till now; because 
I was resolv'd to attempt my Answer propria manu. But 
you'll easily observe. Dear S'^., from my characters, that I 

a prologue. Pope has satirized him in the Bathos, The Dunciad, The 
Grub-street Journal, and the later version of the Epistle to Dr. Arhuthnot. 
John Moore was a well known apothecary in his day, who because 
of some notoriety gained by a particular kind of worm powder, eUc- 
ited Pope's poem "To Mr. John Moore, Author of the Celebrated 
Worm-powder." 



276 APPENDIX C 

have yet neither a command of my Strokes, nor the Pen 
of a ready Writer. 

I am very glad to find, y* Shakespeare Restored is in your 
Judgment neither full of gross faults, nor yet of many venial 
slips. And I the rather flatter myself, that you have not 
been partial in this Opinion, because if either had been the 
case, It scarce would have escaped the Attacks of my Sneer- 
ing Antagonist. 

I beg to be resolv'd by your next, whether one of yours 
has not miscarried ! The Reason of my doubt is this ; your 
Last beginning abruptly w*^. the Word Appendix w^^out 
any preceding Address as usual ; & the Last before That 
w*^^ I received from you upon the Subject of my Book bears 
Date above ten weeks ago. As Reading has been a great 
Part of the Amusement in my Power during my Confine- 
ment at home I have run thro' all Aristophanes & his Scho- 
liast ; upon which I shall take the Liberty to trouble you 
w*^. some Remarks in proper Time. Our Town is so very 
empty, that I am quite destitute of my small circle of 
Friends; so cannot pretend to entertain You w*^. any 
News; only that the World of Pleasure, I am afraid, are 
likely to lose M'■^ Oldfield : for she lies extreamly ill of an 
inveterate Ulcer in Matrice: Upon w^^ a polite Clergyman 
with us observ'd in a circle of Ladies, that she was punish'd 
in that Part, w*^ w^^ she had so greatly offended God & 
Mankind. But my Hand now calls upon me to favour its 
Weakness : as my Inclination does to subscribe myself 
Dearest S^ 
Yo'". most Affectionate & 
obliged Humble serv*. 
Wyan's Court Lew. Theobald. 

3*^ Sept^ 1730. 



APPENDIX C 277 

Dear S''. 

I hope I shall yet have so much Credit with you that you 
will beleive, tho' I had not yesterday reced the Pleasure 
of yours, I was fully determin'd this Evening to salute you 
by letter : & I am convinced presently you will believe me. 

You may, perhaps, imagine from my late Silence, that I 
really took y'". last kind Letter, as you there hinted, for 
the rudest I ever received ; but I assure you by my Honesty 
(if I have any) I prize it as a most cordial Testimony of a 
Friendship, that shall ever be dear to me ; & tho' for reasons 
yet unknown to You, I have seemed to slumber over Grat- 
itude, & postpon'd my Acknowledments till now; yet I 
dare assure You, yo^. Counsel has not lost its Effects. 

Whelm' d as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink 
One of my obstinate Phlegm) yet at y'" Instigation I have 
rous'd & exerted [myself] against the strongest Attacks of 
Calamity. The Call of Reputation so justly urged by my 
Dearest Friend, started me from my Lethargy, & you'll 
begin to think I have been awake, when I have done Myself 
the Pleasure to let you know, I have at last fix'd the Pro- 
teus. No longer ago than Thursday, Tonson & I exchang'd 
Articles for the Publication of Shakespeare. Till I could 
bring this agreeable Point to bear, I was determin'd to be 
silent ; & do me the Justice in yo"" kind Thoughts to believe, 
that neither awkward Disgust, Disregard, nor Indolence, 
have kept me dumb : but only the strong Desire of opening 
my Correspondance w*^. this important Piece of good 
news : upon w*^^ I know, I shall have your heartiest Con- 
gratulations. As to the Booksellers, Dear S""., who once 
made some Overtures to me, you hinted that they com- 
plain' d I had not dealt so honourably w*^. them: I fancy, 
you will be satisfied I can turn the Tables upon them, when 
I tell you, Tonson has acceded to double the Terms they 
offer 'd me : I was by their Contract to have had the la- 



278 APPENDIX C 

bouring Oar upon Me, to have been entitled only to a first 
Payment, & they to have reced the Second : I have now 
closed my Agreement to have the Work published in 6 VoP. 
in 8^°., to have 400 copies, compleat in Sheets, deliver'd 
me on a Fine Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever ; 
& 100 copies more on Fine Royal Paper, I only paying for 
the paper : so that if I can have my Compliment of Sub- 
scriptions, the small paper will bring me in 800 guineas; 
& the Books in Royal 300 more : besides w*'^. I have reserv'd 
the Liberty of prefixing a Dedication to each Volume. — 
And so much for that Affair. 

As to Milton, Dear S''., D'". Bently is so far from having 
laid aside the Thoughts of it, that the whole Paradise Lost 
is work'd off, & the Book will be publish'd before Christmas. 
I own, I venerate him so far as a Classical Critic, that I 
am sorry he has now dabbled in a Province, where even the 
Ladies are prepar'd to laugh at, & confute him. 
mi am much oblig'd to your Friend M"". Taylor,^ for his 
kind Intentions of having subscrib'd to my Remarks. I 
don't know, whether the alteration in my scheme, may not 
occasion an Alteration in his Intentions : therefore I wait 
y'". Commands on that Head. 

I thank you, Dearest S^ for yo'" Conjectures last 
communicated, but indeed I have not yet had time to 
weigh them sufficiently. In Return, I'll send you an Emen- 
dation I made but the other Night, upon a Passage w*'^. I 
am sure, you will be surpriz'd w*^ me, how it could scape 
us Both. But to see how blind Pleasure & prepossession 
may sometimes make one in Shakespeare ! 

Merry Wives and I was hke to be apprehended for 

of Wind', p. 282. the Witch of Brainford, but that my 

» Robert Taylor (1710-62), physician and member of the Royal 
Society, was educated under Warburton at Newark. His Harveian 
lecture, 1755, was highly valued abroad. 



APPENDIX C 279 

admirable Dexterity of Wit, my counterfeiting the 

Action of AN OLD Woman delivered me, the Knave 

Constable had set me i' th' Stocks &c. 

Sure this Reading is no great Complement to the Sagacity 

of our . . . ^^ etic Editors.* What! was it any Dexterity 

of Wit in S"". J°. Falst to counterfeit the action of an 

old Woman, in Order to escape being apprehended for a 
Witch? Surely, one would imagine, this was the readiest 
means to bring him into such a Scrape : for None but old 
Women have ever been suspected of being Witches. If I 
am not strangely deceived, Shakespeare wrote and meant 
— my counterfeiting the action of A WOOD Woman &c., 
i.e. a crazy, frantick, delirious Woman; one too wild & 
silly, & unmeaning to have either the MaUce, or Mischievous 
Subtlety of a Witch in her. Perhaps the Pronunciation & 
Writing of Shakespeare's Times, or his County, might call 
& spell this Word, a WOLD or WOULD woman ; & that 
might faciUtate the corruption to OLD. And now my 
Dearest Friend, permit me to Hve in hopes of hearing a 
fresh from you, as well as to confess myself inviolably 

y. most obUged & affectionate humble 
Serv*. 
Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 

30 Octo^ 173L 



Dear S^ 

I have reced the pleasure of yours, w*'^. comes fraught 
w*^. Kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions; And 
it is no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be 
the Text of Friendship, as it has ever been reckoned, I have 

" MS. is torn. 



280 APPENDIX C 

one sincere & cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I 
think the present Period of my Life may truely fall under 
that Denomination ; for however the Affair, w^^. I am now 
bringing to bear, may in time retrieve me from Necessities ; 
yet at present, when I should set down with a IVIind & Head 
at ease & disembarrassed, the Severity of a rich Creditor 
(& therefore the more unmercifull) has strip'd me so bare, 
that I never was acquainted with such Wants, since I knew 
the Use of Money. But when I am labouring at so much 
Philosophy in practice, as to persuade myself not to feel 
Adversity ; I am angry with myself for giving my Friend a 
part of that Pain w^^ I am professing to get rid off in my 
Bosom. It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof), 
that I am in no degree the Philosopher. — Sed ad alia quae- 
dam dulciora. 

I have great Satisfaction in the News you tell me, that 
you have a fresh Fund of Entertainment for Me upon 6 
of our Author's Tragedies : & I shall hve in a sweet Expec- 
tation of their Arrival. Tonson has sent me in a Shakes- 
peare interleav'd; & I am now extracting such notes & 
Emendations, as upon the Maturest Dehberation, I am 
certain will stand the Test. For the Censures, that may 
succeed, make me reflect in Time, that I had much better 
smother uncertain Suspicions than appear too boldly peremp- 
tory. There are some Passages in w^^. I shall be obUged to 
retract my own Emendations ; & even where they have 
met with your Concurrence. For instance ; — 
Love's Lab^ lost. p. 301 

A mfe, a heard, fair health & honesty ; 

With threefold Love I wish you all these Three 

It seem'd to me, you may remember, that She wish'd him 
here four things, & therefore I was for changing Health into 
Youth, & putting it into parenthesis, as if She call'd her 



APPENDIX C 281 

Lover so. — This Change you were pleas'd to approve : 
& I own, it struck me with a present conviction of its being 
certain. But Upon a more accurate Collation w^^ I have 
since made of our Author w*^ the first foHo Edition, I am 
persuaded Nothing must be alter'd but the Pointing, & 
That upon the Authority of the old Book, thus — 

A Wife! a Beard, fair health & honesty ; 

i.e. as we say : — A Wife! — Marry come up, such a Stripling 
as you shall come a wooing indeed! No, no ; I'll first wish 
you a Beard &c. — But I am to thank my Friend Pope's 
singular Inaccuracy, for many an Increase of our Labour of 
this sort. I'll now submit to yo^ Judgement a slight sus- 
picion upon a Passage of Meas. for Meas. p. 335. 

Claud. Now, Sister what's the Comfort ? 

Isab. Why as all Comforts are : most good INDEED ! 
This Reply at present conveys no satisfactory Idea to me ; 
nor is so significant an Answer as I should expect from 
Isabella to a Brother under his Circumstances. She is 
grave & in earnest ; & as she knows his Doom is arbitrarily 
fix'd, she would at once wean him from all flattering Ex- 
pectations, & would have him look upon the Completion 
of his Fate as a solid Comfort. I suspect, the Poet meant ; 
Why, as all Comforts are ; most good IN DEED ; I don't 
bring you any airy Comfort, built only on fallacious Hope ; 
but a Comfort solidly such, as all Comforts must be deem'd, 
when they are put in Execution ; when we receive the actual 
Benefit of them. I think, I conceive a little more from this 
Reading; but I shall wait y^ Thoughts upon it, before I 
make it standard. A propos, a Word, by the by, on Measure 
for Measure. Tis certain the Foundation of this Story is 
from Cynthio Geraldi's Hecatomuthi ; but I find the Stage 
had likewise borrow'd the Fable before our Author's Time, 
under different Characters ; & I have by me the old Play in 



282 APPENDIX C 

two Parts, printed in the black Letter, in 1578, calFd, The 
right Excellent & famous History of Promos & Cassandra, 
divided into two Comical Discourses; in the first part 
whereof is shewn the unsufferable Abuse of a lewd Magistrate 
& the virtuous Behaviours of a chast Lady : And in the 
second part is discovered, The perfect Magnanimity of a 
noble King, in checking Vice & favouring Virtue : wherin 
is shewn the Ruine & Overthrow of dishonest Practices; 
with the Advancement of upright Dealing. So much for 
the Title : for the play itself, execrably bad as it is, I am 
confident that our Author had consulted it; & it adds if 
possible, to my Admiration of the Man, to have such a 
Testimony, how finely he could improve upon a Predecessor, 
without the modern Advantages of Stealing. 

I cannot remember whether T ever have communicated 
to you a Discovery that I have made with regard to the 
Merry Wives of Windsor. M'". Pope speaks of an Old 4*^ 
Edition of this play printed in 1619 ; & of a tradition of it's 
being written by Queen EHzabeth's Command. But a 
play printed 17 years after her Death gives this Tradition 
but a very poor Authority. I can now support it a great 
Deal better; for I have by me another Edition, printed in 
1602, in the Title of which we are told it had been diverse 
times acted by the right honourable the L^. Chamberlain's 
Servants, Both before her Majesty & elsewhere. Whether 
it was wrote by the Queen's Command, or no, is not very 
material; however, we derive some Light as to the Time 
of the Poet's Writing it; for as Harry the Fourth, I can 
prove, was not earlier in its Date y°. 1599 ^^ (from w''^ 
the PubUck had their first acquaintance w*^ S^ John Fal- 

" Later Theobald must have found reason to doubt his proofs, for 
in his edition, vol. 3, p. 349, he says the drama "had been play'd, and 
was well known" before 1599. Furthermore he does not mention 
Henry IV m dating the Merry Wives. 



APPENDIX C 283 

staffe) this reduces the Intervall betwixt That & the first 
Sketch of the Merry Wives to about two Seasons. 

As to the Loci desperati, I'll take Notice of them as I go 
along, & reduce them into a List for your Enquiry. 

I should be very glad, Dear S""., if you can give me any 
Account of Platonius the Grammarian, whose fragment 
upon the 3 Sorts of Greek Comedy is prefixed to Aristo- 
phanes. T expected to have had some Information from 
Fabricius in his Bibliothaeca Graeca, but am disappointed ; 
& Photius I have not. 

I cannot conclude the present Trouble I give You, without 
desiring my Respects & Thanks to your ingenious Pupill 
M'". Taylor ; for whom I have underwritten a subscription- 
Receipt for Shakespeare ; & believe me, Dearest S""., with 
the most inviolable Attachment 

Yd' ever obliged & affectionate 

humble Serv*. 
Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 

^ — ov^ 1731 



My Dear Friend, 

I reced by your Last (N** III) of y« 22^. of Nov^ ; your 
kind Assurances w*^. Regard to my Preface; the Contents 
of w°^. I am Endeavouring to modell in my Head, in Order 
to communicate them to you, for your Directions & Refine- 
ment. I have already rough-hewn the Exordium & Con- 
clusion ; the Latter of w*'^. I now send you a Transcript of, 
to shew you how methodical I am ; & by my Next, I shall 
submit the Opening to yo"". Perusal. I beg earnestly, 
Dear S^., you will not be tender of altering, everywhere; 
(except in my Acknowledgm*^ to my Friends) I would have 
12 MS. is torn. 



284 APPENDIX C 

the Whole both amuse & strike. What I shall send you 
from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials : w*'^ I 
hope may grow into a fine Building, under your judicious 
Management. In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata 
rotundis, &c. 

[Having now run thro' all these Points, w^^ I intended 
should make any Part of this Dissertation, it only remaines 
that I should account to the Publick, but more particularly 
to my Subscribers, why they have waited so long for this 
Work; that I should make my Acknowledgments to those 
Friends who have been generous Assistants to me in the 
Conducting it : & lastly, that I should acquaint my Readers 
what Pains I have Myself taken to make the Work as 
compleat, as faithfull Industry & my best AbiUties could 
render it. 

In the Middle of the Year 1728, I first put out my proposals 
for pubUshing only Emendations & Remarks on our Poet : 
And I had not gone on many Months in this Scheme before 
I found it to be the unanimous Wish of Those who, did me 
the Honour of their Subscriptions, that I would likewise 
give them the Poet's Text corrected ; & that I would sub- 
join those Explanatory Remarks, w^^ I had purpos'd to 
publish upon the Foot of my first Proposals. Earnest Sol- 
licitations were made to Me, that I would think of such an 
Edition, w^^. I had as strong Desires to listen to : and some 
Noble Persons then, whom I had no Priviledge to name, were 
pleas' d to interest themselves so far in the Affair, as to 
propose to M"^. Tonson his undertaking an Impression of 
Shakespeare with my Corrections. I must do him the 
Justice to declare, that He with great Readiness came into 
a Treaty with me for this Work; But having just then 
glutted the Trade with a large Edition by M"". Pope in 
Twelves, he frankly told me, he could not with any Face 
or Conscience, pretend to throw out another Impression, 



APPENDIX C 285 

before those Books were a little dispersed & vended : And 
so Time was unavoidably lost : While the Publication of 
my Remarks was thus respited, my Enemies took an un- 
fair Occasion to suggest, that I was extorting Money from 
my Subscribers without ever designing to give Them any- 
thing for it : An Insinuation levelFd at once to wound me 
in Reputation & Interest. Conscious, however, of my own 
just Intentions, & labouring all the while to bring my wish'd 
purpose to bear, I thought these anonymous Slanderers 
worthy of no Notice. A Justification of Myself would 
have been giving them Argument for fresh Abuse : & I 
was willing to believe, that any unkind Opinions, enter- 
tained to my Prejudice, would naturally drop & lose their 
Force, when the Publick should once be convinc'd that I 
was in Earnest, & ready to do them Justice. I left no Means 
untry'd to put it in my Power to do This ; &, I hope without 
Breach of Modesty, I may venture to appeal to all candid 
Judges, whether I have not employ'd all my Power to be 
just to them in the Execution of my Task. 

I come now to speak of those kind Assistances, w'' . I 
have met with from particular Friends, towards forwarding 
& compleating this Work. Soon after my Design was 
known, I had the honour of an Invitation to Cambridge; 
<fe a generous Promise from the Learned & ingenious D'". 
Thirlby of Jesus-CoUedge there, who had taken great pains 
w*^ my Author, that I should have the Liberty of collating 
his copy of Shakespeare, mark'd thro' in the Margin with 
his own Mss. References, & accurate Observations. He 
not only made good this promise, but favour'd me with a 
Sett of Emendations, interspers'd & distinguished in his 
Name, thro' the Edition : & which can need no Recommen- 
dation here to the judicious Reader. 

The next Assistance I received was from my ingenious 
Friend Hawley Bishop Esq'", whose great Powers & Exten- 



286 APPENDIX C 

sive Learning are as well known as his uncommon Modesty, 
to all who have the Hapiness of his Acquaintance. This 
gentleman was so generous, at the Expence both of his 
Pocket & Time, to run thro' all Shakespeare with me. We 
join'd Business & Entertainment together; & at every of 
our Meetings, w^^ were constantly once a Week,^^ we read 
over a Play, & came mutually prepared to communicate 
our Conjectures upon it to each other. The Pleasure of 
these Appointments, I think I may say, richly compensated 
for the Labour in our own Thoughts ; & I may venture to 
affirm, in the behalf of my Assistant, that our Author has 
deriv'd no little Improvement from Them. 

To these I must add the indefatigable Zeal & Industry of 
my most ingenuous & ever-respected Friend, the Rev^. 
M"". Warburton of Newarke-upon-Trent. This Gentleman 
from the Motives of his frank & communicative Disposi- 
tion, voluntarily became a Labourer in the Vineyard : not 
only read over the whole Author for Me with the exactest 
care ; but enter' d into a long & laborious Epistolary Corres- 
pondance, to which I owe no small part of my best Criticisms 
upon my Author. The Number of Passages amended, & 
admirably explain'd, w*'^. I have taken care to distinguish 
with his Name, will shew a Fineness of Spirit, & Extent of 
Reading, beyond all the Commendations I can give them. 
Nor, indeed, would I any further be thought to commend a 
Friend, than, in so doing, to give a Testimony of my own 
Gratitude. How great a Share soever of my praise, I must 
lose from myself, in confessing these Assistances; & how- 
ever my own poor Conjectures may be weaken'd by the 
Comparison w*^ theirs ; I am very well content to sacrifice 
my Vanity to the Pride of being so assisted, & the Pleasure 
of being just to their Merits. 

I beg Leave to observe to my Readers in one Word here, 
" These meetings were held by the so-called Concanen Club. 



APPENDIX C 287 

that from the Confession of these successive Aids, & the 
Manner in w"^^ I deriv'd them, it appears, I have pretty- 
well fiird up the Interval, betwixt my first Proposals & my 
PubUcation, w*^ having my Author always in View & at 
Heart. 

Some Hints I have the Honour to owe to the Information 
of D^ Mead, & the late D^ Friend : Others the Kindness 
of the ingenious Martin Folkes Esq"", who likewise furnish'd 
me with the first folio Edition of Shakespeare, at a Time 
when I could not meet with it among the Booksellers : as 
my Friend Thomas Coxeter Esq^ did w*^. several of the old 
Quarto single Plays, w''^ I then had not in my own Collec- 
tion. Some few Observations I likewise Owe to the Favour 
of Anonymous Persons : for all Which I most gladly render 
my Acknowledgments. 

As to what regards myself singly, if the Edition do not 
speak for the Pains I have taken about it, it will be very 
vain to plead my own Labour & Diligence. Besides a faith- 
full Collation of all the printed Copies, w*'^. I have exhibited 
in my Catalogue of Editions, let it suffice to say, that to 
clear up several Errors in the Historical ^^ . . . Plays, I pur- 
posely read over Hall & Holingshead's Chronicles in the 
Reigns o . . . n'd; all the Novells in Italian from which 
our Author had borrowed any ... his Plots : such parts of 
Plutarch, from w^^ he had derived any parts of his G . . . 
Story; & above 800 old English Plays, to ascertain the 
obsolete & uncommon . . . him : not to mention some Labour 
& Pains unpleasantly spent in the dry task of . . . Etymo- 
logical Glossaries. 

But as no labour of mine can be equivalent to the dear & 
ardent Love I bear for Shakespeare, so if the Publick shall 
be pleased to allow that he owes Anything to my WilUng- 
ness|& Endeavours of restoring him, I shall reckon the Part 

" MS. is torn. 



288 APPENDIX C 

of my Life, so engaged, to have been very happily em- 
ploy'd : & put Myself with great submission, to be try'd 
by my Country in the Affair. 

Finis. 

Forgive me, my dearest Friend, that I have inserted what 
relates to y^'self, & believe that I had certainly dechn'd 
it, only that I am determin'd to submit the Whole to you. 

Because no paper shall be lost, I'll trouble you. Dear S*"., 
with a second Thought upon this Passage of Hamlet, of 
w*'^ you have given me an Emendation. 

p. 292. Nature is Fine in Love & where 'tis Fine &c. 

You conjecture Falne. But I have ruminated the Sentiment 
over pretty much in Head, & let us see whether the Text 
may not be explained, as it stood. I conceive that this 
might be the Poet's Meaning. — In the Passion of Love 
Nature becomes more exquisite of Sensation, is more sub- 
limed & refined; & where 'tis so refined &c. If I mistake 
not our Poet has play'd with this Thought twice or thrice in 
some other of his Plays. The Clown in As You Uke It. 
Act. 2. See. 4. seems to glance at this Refinment, but 
interprets it a sort of Frantickness. ''We that are true 
Lovers run into strange Capers, but as all is Mortal in 
Nature, so is all Nature in Love mortal in Folly J' 

But lago in Othello Ac. 2. Sc. 7. delivers himself much 
more directly to the Purpose of the Sentiment here before 
us. — ''as they say, base Men, being in Love have then a 
Nobility in their Natures more than is native to them. 

And Cressida in Troilus Ac. 4. Sc. 6. I think, expresses 
herself concerning Grief exactly as Laertes does here of 
Nature 

"The Grief is Fine, full, perfect that I taste ; 

''And in its Sense is no less strong, than That 

"Which causeth it. 



APPENDIX C 289 

If upon Weighing these Passages, you shall determine w*^ 
Me that the Text may stand, I beUeve it will not be im- 
proper to refute M"". Pope's silly Conjecture, & explain the 
Poet by these Quotations. 

I am, with the truest Respect, Dearest S'"., 
Y^. most affectionate Friend, & obliged 
humble Servant 
Wyan's Court 
4 Dec^ 1731. Lew. Theobald. 



My dear Friend, 

Since my last to you, I have had the pleasure of 3 of 
yours, (No IV, V, & VI) to parts of w^^. when I have en- 
deavoured to reply in This, I will account to you for some 
portion of my present Engagements. 

I am sorry the Impertinence of the Understrappers of 
the Post-office should prompt them to make my Franks 
ineffectual; but so soon as my good Friend Lord Orrery 
comes from Bath, I'll try if they dare dispute his Signature ; 
& if they should, I'll not fail the Opportunity of having a 
Touch at them in Requital. 

As to what you mention of taking off the Prejudices 
on Account of the Avocations, w*'^. your Friendship has lent 
me from your Profession, I join w*^ you in the Reasonableness 
of it : and will take due care to justify you ag*. the possible 
Inconveniency. What I intend on this Head shall be sub- 
mitted to yo"" View, as well as the other Contents of the Pref- 
ace. For the same Reason, that such a palliating Caution 
is to be observ'd, the phrase w^^. I had inadvertently used 
of your becoming a Labourer in the Vineyard, must as indis- 
pensibly be chang'd. 

I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts 
of my Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given 



290 APPENDIX C 

you the Conclusion, & the Manner in w''^. I meant to start) 
to give you a List of all the other general Heads design'd to 
be handled, then to transmit to you, at proper Leisure, my 
rough Working off of each respective Head, that you might 
have the Trouble only of refining & embellishing w*^ : ad- 
ditional Inrichments : of the general Arrangement, w^^. you 
should think best for the whole; & of making the proper 
Transitions from Subject to Subject, w^^. I account no in- 
considerable Beauty. If you think right to indulge me in 
this Scheme, my next shall be employ'd in Prosecution of it. 

I will not fail to press all the physical Quaery's w°^ : you 
have directed me, with an Encrease, upon D^ Mead; & 
some Answer, upon the Strength of his written Promise, I 
will extort. He may easily par cell them out to his Disciples, 
(to save his own Pains or Credit), & so give me their Solu- 
tions in his own Name. They will embrace the Task as a 
Complement from him ; & either Way answers my Purpose. 

The Occasional Insertion of a few Emendations from 
some Greek Authors, I certainly think may be of signal 
service to my Reputation ; if you think they may safely be 
interspersed without Suspicion of Pedantry. I would not 
voluntarily draw that Ridicule upon me from the Sneerers. 
You are anxious. Dear S'"., for every Part of my Character; 
but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress'd up in too glaring 
Colours. To be a little diffident, will secure me from much 
Envy & Detraction. 

To the Critical parts of your Epistles, I reply no farther 
in present, than in my Thanks. It will not displease you, 
I know, to hear that M'". Tonson, since our Agreement, 
behaves with great Candour, & professions of sincere Service. 
He tells me. Expectations are greatly reviv'd from the pub- 
lick's being informed I am now in Earnest; that the Eyes 
of the Whole Town are upon my Work ; & that he does not 
doubt but I shall find a good Account in my Subscription, 



APPENDIX C 291 

as well as considerable Assistance of Conjectures, &c from 
many Lovers of our Author. 

Now a little to my late premised Engagements. In order 
to make Domestic affairs run as smoothly as may be, till I 
can bring this greater Affair to a Crisis, I have apply'd 
my uneasie Summer Months upon the Attempt of a Tragedy. 
Sit verbo venia! I have a Design upon the Ladies Eyes, 
as the Passage to their Pockets : if the Town be not too de- 
prav'd, for any Remaines of Sensation ; & as I shall not in 
This enter upon Any Part of the Preface, I'll indulge myself, 
in submitting a Pair of Soliloquies to you, as a Taste of my 
poor Workmanship. I lay my Scene in Italy. My Heroine 
is a young Widow Dutchess, who has two haughty Spanish 
Brothers, y*. enjoin her not to marry again. She, however, 
clandestinely marries the Master of her Household on the 
Morning I open my Scene; & in the 3^. Act, I shew her 
expecting her Bridegroom's private approach to her. So 
much, by way of Argument. 

Scene changes to the Dutchess's Bed-chamber. A Bed 
seen & a Table w*^. Papers. The Dutchess sitting undrest. 

Dutch : 
How tedious is Suspence, that makes one Hour 
Move slow & heavy as a Winter's Night, 
When Nights are longest! — I have strove, in vain, 
By Reading to beguile the Lazy Time : 
But my unsteady Eye, & roving Mind, 
Like two impatient restive Travellers, 
Tho' bent the same Way get the Start by Turns ; 
And will not keep each Other Company — 
I know not what I read — What hideous Noise? 
It may be, 'twas the melancholy Bird, 
(The Friend of Silence & of Solitude,) 
The Owl, that schream'd : or, was it Fancy's Coinage? — 



292 APPENDIX C 

When once the SouFs disturb'd, each little Thing 
Starts & alarms. — The Court's not yet at Rest, 
Or He would come — My Breast is like a House 
With many Servants throng'd, unruly All, 
And All employed on Tasks of diff'ring Natures. 
Doubts, Perturbations, Thoughts of Self-Conviction 
Uncertain Wishes, & unquiet Longings, 
Debate the Strife within. — I've heard it said, 
Love, mix't with Fear is sweetest. I'm perhaps 
Too much a Coward, & That spoils my Relish. 

The Next, Dear S"" :, is in the 4*^ Act. Her Match is dis- 
cover'd ; Her Husband oblig'd to fly. One of her tyrannous 
Brothers, a Duke, employs an Agent to strangle her; and 
after the Order given, I produce him in the conflict betwixt 
Conscience & Remorse. 

Enter Duke Ferdinand 
Ferd: 
O sacred Innocence ! that sweetly sleeps 
On Turtles Feathers, whilst guilty Conscience 
Makes all our Slumbers worse than feavrish Dreams, 
When only Monstrous Forms disturb the Brain. 
Tis a black Register, wherein is writ 
All our good Deeds & bad : a Perspective 
That shews us Hell, more horrid than Divines, 
Or Poets, know to paint it. — Hark, what Noise? 
The Screams of Women, ever & anon, 
Ring thro' my Ears, shrill as the Sabine cries. 
When Rome's bold Sons rush'd on their frighted Virgins. 
A thousand fancied Horrors shake my Soul, 
E'er since I dictated this Deed of Slaughter. — 
There is no written Evidence to proclaim 
My order, & must coward Apprehension 



APPENDIX C 293 

Give it a Tongue ? — The Element of Water 

Drops from the Clouds, & sinks into the Earth : 

But Blood flies upward, & bedews the Heav'ns. — 

The Wolf shall find her Grave, & scrape it up. 

Not to devour the Coarse, but to discover 

The horrid Murther. — Shall I let her live? 

What says Revenge to That ? — Or what says Nature ? 

Resentment preaches Treason still to Virtue ; 

And to repent us of a blamefull Purpose, 

Is manly pious Sorrow. — She shall live. 

You see, my Dear Friend, I have feasted my own Vanity 
at large : I wish, I may have consulted your Entertainment 
in any Proportion. 

I must now desire my Respects & Thanks tender' d to your 
Friend, young D''. Taylor. I have sent, please to tell him, 
a Rec*. over to M^. Botham at Cambridge for his small 
Paper; & inclos'd I send the other, as directed, for the 
Royal. M^. Taylor not knowing the Tenour of my pro- 
posals, has sent up but a Guinea & | for the first payment : 
but the Rule is 2 Guineas down, & so I have worded the Re- 
ceipt, to prevent confusions at the Delivery of the Books. 
I'll tell you how I fancy the | Guinea may be remitted w*^. 
Safety & Secrecy, & w*^. no trouble to you. In the Sealing 
your Letter, place it under a wet Wafer, & then put your 
Wax-Impression over it, & it will be imperceptible. I 
have often had this experimented here in Town, 

I have only now, S""., to tender you the good Wishes 
attending the approaching Season ; & to confess myself. 
My dearest Friend 

y. ever affectionate & oblig'd 
humble Serv*. 
Wyan's Court Lew : Theobald 

18 Dec. 1731. 



294 APPENDIX C 

My dear Friend, 

I hope this will find you entirely recovered from y* trouble- 
some Indisposition complain' d of in the postscript of yo^. 
last (No. viii) that I reced by Inclosure from y® Commiss®'" 
of y^ Post Office, together w*^ yours to your Sister & M^. 
Twells's to M''. Carteret. These Remonstrances, seconded 
by my Representation of y^ fact before them & y® Accident 
of y® Doit being likewise intercepted, have had such an 
Effect, y* I have not only had my | Guinea restor'd, but y® 
Letter-Carrier is dismiss' d from his Business. It may seem 
a little strange, perhaps, w^ I tell you, that I have placed 
myself so far on y® side of Mercy, as to solliciting his Read- 
mission. But my Reasons are, that Appearances only are 
against him, & no proof that he is tardy in y^ Affair, however 
y® Resentment has settled there. Besides, he has bin a 
servant to the Office 18 years without Intermission, & this 
y® very first complaint levell'd at him ; he is a man in the 
Dechne of Life, has a sick Wife & 3 Children, & this small 
Branch of Profit was their Whole Bread. — If good Nature 
is misemploy'd in this Task, I hope, these are seeming 
Motives to excuse the Frailty. And I may add to these, 
what I am very well convinc'd of, that the Plectuntur Achivi 
of Horace is a Lemma not yet out of Fashion in our pubUck 
Offices. There are in all of them a Sett of extravagant 
young Clerks, who live above their Salary, & are liable to 
casual Temptations : And these, I fear, whenever a Blot 
is hit, have Policy enough to shift the Blame off to Inferiors. 
I'll not venture to make this Judgment in y^ particular Case 
before Us ; but what has been. May be ; ut vulgo dicitur. 

I shall wholly suspend the Affair of Shakespeare in This, 
because other Matter offers, w^^ may not be displeasing. 
I make no doubt, but M^ Pope's Epistle of Taste, address'd 
to L"*. Burlington, has long since reach'd you, & pass'd 
the Censure. Tis thought by some here, that this piece has 



APPENDIX C 295 

not contributed much more to y®. Credit of his Poesie, than 
of his Morals ; but this is a Criticism I do not take upon me 
to meddle with. I mention it only, as it has occasioned 
another Satirical Poem by a Gentleman of our Faction, M'". 
Welsted, Of Dullness & Scandal. Now as I am willing to 
allow, that our Ware may not have the same Alacrity in 
TravelHng, and so it may not have reach'd your Parts ; I 
design you an Extract from it, from w^^. you will be able to 
determine whether M^. Welsted has not wip'd out his Score 
w*^. Pope on the Topick of Slander. The Author at least 
seems to think so by his Motto's. 

Turno Tempus adest, magno cum optaverit emptum 
Intactum Pallanta: Pallas te hoc Vulnere donat. 

Virg. 

The two particular Topicks w^^. incense M^. Welsted to 

animadvert on P are first, his having reduced a very 

pretty Lady, Sr. Peter Vanderput's Widow, of Richmond, to 
a moping Frenzy w*^. obliging her to read over a second time 
his version of Homer, to make her a Mistress of its Beauties ; 
& then his being suppos'd to abuse y® Duke of Chandos 
under y® Character of Timon, in his late Epistle on Taste. 
Thence he passes to a tolerably-spreading Invective on 
P himself, w^^. take in the Poet's own Words. 

Nor Innocence alone it's Inj'ry rues, 
Nor Beauty feels alone th' Assassin's Muse : 
His Felon-Arts the Patriot's Seats alarm, . 
And spite assails what Dullness cannot harm. 



Inglorious Rhimer ! low licentious Slave ! 
Who blasts the Beauteous, & belies the Brave ; 



296 APPENDIX C 

In scurril Verse who robs, & dull Essays, 
Nymphs of their Charms, & Heroes of their Praise 
All Laws for Pique, or Caprice will forego; 
The Friend of CataUne, & Tully's foe ! 

Oh ! born to blacken ev'ry virtuous Name ; 

To pass like Blightings, o'er the Blooms of Fame : 

The Venom of thy baleful Quill to shed, 

Alike on living Merit, & the Dead ! 

Sure, that fam'd Machiavil, what Time he drew 

The Soul's dark Workings in the crooked Few, 

The rancour'd Spirit, & malignant Will, 

By Instinct base, by Nature shap'd to 111, 

An unborn Deemon was inspired to see. 

And in his Rapture prophesied of Thee. 

Ordain'd a hated Name by Guilt to raise. 
To bless with Libel, & to curse with Praise ! 
A sof tling Head that spleeny Whims devour ; 
With Will to Satire, but deny'd the Pow'r ! 
A Soul corrupt ! that hireling Praise suborns ! 
That hates for Genius, & for Virtue scorns ! 
A Coxcomb's Talents, with a Pedant's Art ! 
A Bigot's Fury in an Atheist's Heart ! 
Lewd without Lust, & without Wit prophane ! 
Outragious, & afraid ! contemn'd, and vain ! 

Immur'd, whilst young, in Convents hadst Thou been, 
*Victoria, still with Rapture we had seen ; 
But now our Wishes by the Fates are crost, 
W've gained a Thersite, & an Helen lost : 
The envious Planet has deceiv'd our Hope, 
W've lost a S*. Leger, & gain'd a Pope. 

A little Monk thou wert by Nature made, 
Wert fashion 'd for the Jesuits Gossip-Trade ! 

* Lady Van 1 (Theobald's note). 



APPENDIX C 297 

A lean Church-Pandar, to procure, or lie ! 
A Pimp at Altars, or in Courts a spy ! 

The Verse that Blockheads dawb, shall swift decay 
And Jervas's Fame in Fustian fade away : 
Forgot the self -applauding Strain shall be 
Tho' own'd by Walsh, or pahn'd on Wycherley : 
While Time, nor Fate, this faithfull Sketch erase. 
Which shews thy Mind, as Reisbank's Bust thy Face, 

*Yet Thou proceed; impeach with steadfast Hate 
Whate'er is godlike, & whate'er is Great : 
Debase in low Burlesque, the Song Divine, 
And level David's deathless Muse to thine. 
Be Bawdry, still, thy ribald Canto's Theme ; 
Traduce for Satire, & for Wit blaspheme. 
Each chast Idea of thy Mind review : 
Make ^'^Cwpid's squirt, & gaping Tritons spew ; 
*** All Sternhold's Spirit in thy Verse restore, 
And be what Bass & Hey wood were before. 

Upon the Whole, sure, Horace was in the right when he said 

— facit Indignatio Versum. And if P be as sensible on 

these Rebukes as 'tis said he is, I wish (& don't let the Word 
undergo the Torture of an irony) his intermitting Headach 
do not turn to a setted Agony. I am, My dearest Friend, 

v. most affectionate & 
obliged humble Serv*. 

Lew. Theobald. 
Wyan's Court 
SJan^y. 1731. [1732] 

* Pope's Epist. p. 14 (Theobald's note). 
♦* lUd. p. 10 and 12 (Theobald's note). 
*** Ihid. p. 14 (Theobald's note). 



298 APPENDIX C 



DearS^ 

I reced y® pleasure of yours of y® 15*^ Instant, & had an- 
swered it at last Post, but for the alarm of a suddain Fire, 
where I had some Acquaintance in the Neighbourhood. 
Yours of y^ 14*^ of Jan'^y, in answer to mine of y® 8*^ of that 
Month, arriv'd safe : since w''^. I have intermitted writing, 
because I would not trouble you w*^. impertinent Postage. 
My Interval has, indeed, been fill'd up, but not with the 
Affair of my new Tragedy. Matters have turn'd up so ill 
with M^ Rich's Theatre this Season, that I have chosen 
rather to weather the point without bringing it on, than to 
make a Sacrifice of it to his ill Fortune. I'll tell you how 
much more pleasingly I have been engag'd. During those 
Hours w^^ I could borrow from y® Transcript of our Notes 
on Shakespeare, my good Friend my Lord Orrery has done 
me the Honour to put all his Father's papers under my 
Regulation. The late Earl, you know, was Ambassador 
at Brussells during the 4 last years of Q°. Anne's Reign : in 
w*^^. space he reced a Number of Letters from Bolingbroke, 
Ormonde, Marlborough, Strafford, Argyll, Shrewsbury and 
Bp. of London, all w''^ I am transcribing in Books for my 
Lord. I have great pleasure in L"^. Bolingbroke's particu- 
larly, because, (besides their being extreamly well wrote) 
he never sends One from his Office as Secry of State, but he 
seconds it with a private One of Friendship. So y\ Poli- 
ticks are finely reliev'd w*^. the Sentiments of a Sprightly 
Genius upon more desirable Topicks. I have met D'". 
Stukeley more than once : & will beg the Favour of him to 
transmit a few of my Proposals to you. Pope, as you'll 
find, has lent me an accidental hft by his Poem on Taste : for 
the Duke of Chandos, whom I never knew or approach'd, 
has subscrib'd for 4 Setts of my Shakespeare on Royal 
Paper. I am oblig'd to the Partiality of yo^ Cambridge 



APPENDIX C 299 

Friend, who would father a Pamphlet on me y* is spoken 
well of. I suppose he means the friendly letter from Oxford, 
w*^^. has given me much Entertainment ; ^^ but I do assure 
you faithfully I have not dipt a Pen either to praise, or dis- 
pute, the Criticisms on our new Milton. There are, as you 
judiciously hint, many Reasons why I should not at this 
Crisis intermeddle in such a Controversy ; & indeed I should 
have made you my confidant in it. 

You want my opinion you say on D"". Bentley's perform- 
ance ; & I'll give it you freely, but under the Seal of Friend- 
ship : I had a very great veneration for him as a Classical 
Critick; & was very much afraid of his descending to the 
Levell of Women & Children ; that is, of his putting himself 
in the Power of Coquets & Toupets to discant on. He has 
not infrequently, you know, run riot on the dead Languages ; 
but here, to use the Cibberian phrase, he has outdone his 
usual Out doings. He had never certainly attain 'd the 
serious Reputation of a Critick, si sic Omnia dixisset. I 
hope he does not write maliciously to turn the Art into Ridi- 
cule ; but as Rose says of Sir Martin Mar-all Indeed, he has a 
rare way of acting a Fool, & does it so naturally, it can be 
scarce distinguished. Sed eTrexco. 

You say, dear Sir, it is a Book you are not likely to see in 
haste. I don't know whether you speak this as to your want 
of Desire, or Want of Opportunity. If you have a Curiosity 
of dipping into his temerarious Notes & can appoint me the 
Method of Conveyance, you may be sure you shall command 
the Perusal of my Copy, together w*^. D'". Pearse's Criticism 
on Bentley's 4 first Books, & the Friendly Letter from 
Oxford above mentioned. At present our Friend Concanen 
has them, but he's a Man of Dispatch. 

^* A Friendly Letter to Dr. Bentley. Occasioned by his New Edition 
of Paradise Lost. By a Gentleman of Christ-Church College Oxon. 
London, 1732. [Said to be by Z. Pearce.] 



300 APPENDIX C 

As many violent Wrestings of the Text as the D^ has 
ventur'd at, he has omitted one easy hteral Emendation, in 
the 1^* Book, w*'^. I cannot but think he ought to have made. 

V's: 756. 

At Pandaemonium, the high CAPITAL 
Of Satan & his Peers. — 

Thus indeed all the Editions : but it seems to me y* it ought 
to be read, — the high CAPITOL &c. The argument to 
this Book calls it expressly the Palace of Satan, & v's. 710, 
713, 722, 762, 792, all confine it to a single Pile. There is 
beside a singular propriety, methinks, in y^ Term here as 
the Infernals were to meet on the great debate of Peace or 
War : w*'^., you know, was always the Motive of the Romans 
convening at y® capitol. Again, celsa capitolia, you must 
remember is the frequent phrase of the Classics. And 
Hogaeus I am apt to think, who has given us a Latin Para- 
phrase of this Poem, understood our Author as I do : for I 
find he has translated the passage — Inferni CapitoUa. I 
must however take notice y* Book X. v. 424. Pandaemonium 
is called city & proud Seat of Lucifer. But there, I think, 
our Poet does not speak so precisely, but with a Latitude of 
Expression : as in the jocular Song the Cobler's Stall is said 
to be his Kitchen & Parlour & all. But forgive the low Al- 
lusion. 

I'll venture to submit 2 Passages more to you, because I 
know I shall be safe from Ridicule, tho' I should not have 
your Concurr^^ ... in Opinion. B. 1. 282. — fall'n such a 
pernicious Height . . . & B. vi. 520. — Part incentive Reed. 
Provide, pernicious wi . . . Touch to fire. — The Doct^ 
will have this Epithet in both places to be stark Nonsense ; & 
therefore substitutes different Readings of his own. I say, 
the Word is one of Milton's PecuUarities ; an Adoption of 
1^ MS. is torn. 



APPENDIX C 301 

his own Coinage ; that, it has not its derivation from Pernicies 
but Pernicitas ; k that He employs it in those very Accepta- 
tions, the best Roman Writers have used their Pernix. If 
I am mistaken, I shall be glad of your better Information. 

Youll excuse my entering on a Subject, from w*'^. I 
could furnish many Dissertations, would they in Value 
compensate for the Trouble they must give you. 

I am, Dearest S^. 
Your most affectionate & obhged 
Wyan's Court. Friend & humble Servant 

21 Mar. 1731. [1732] L: Theobald, 



Dear Sir, 

You may reasonably think ipe very slack in acknowledging 
the Receipt of your two last of y^ 27*^ of Mar. & 5 May : but 
indeed I have been so httle at my own Command & so 
closely attached to the Service of my good Friend my Lord 
Orrery, that it has greatly broke in upon my private 
Correspondances. Your former put me in a pleasant Ex- 
pectation, that a convenient Opportunity should furnish 
me w*^. a Specimen of y® Emendations on Paterculus : & 
my hopes of them are not cool'd by this silent Intervention. 
When you have presented the PubHck w*^ That & Arnobius, 
We shall be taught not to value Editions on the Number of 
their MSS. You are so obhging to demand some blank 
Rec*®. & more of my Proposals ; w^^. I want to know how 
shall be transmitted to you : & now I come towards the Con- 
clusion of my Task, I find I want my Letters on y® latter 
Plays to compleat my Notes, & compare w*^ your answers ; 
w^^. you'll very much oblige me in sending up per Carrier, & 
then I may by the same conveyance send you down the 
Rec*®. & Proposals. Now my Lord Orrery has taken his 



302 APPENDIX C 

Recess, I dare promise to become a better Correspondant ; 
& for the present I'll send you in MSS. a little Poem, y* I dare 
say, has not in print travell'd so far as your Parts. I am, my 
dear Friend, 

Yo'". most affectionate & oblig'd 
Wyan's Court humble serv*. 

20 June, 1732. Lew. Theobald 

An Epistle, humbly address'd to the R*. Honble John, Earl 
of Orrery. 

Agnosco Procerem. 

Juvenal. 



If Grief, or dear Respect, have made me slow 
To wound your Bosom with Returns of Woe, 
While I presume a Patron lost to mourn, 
And pay due Tribute o'er your Father's Urn ; 
If, conscious of my weak & fait 'ring Pow'r, 
I wish'd & waited, that the rolUng Hour 
Some Genius, fitter to the Task, might raise 
At once to weep his Death, & sing his Praise ; 
Forgive the Motives, Sir, that swayed my Breast, 
And choak'd a Passion, labouring tho' represt. 

Forgive me too, if, when I backward trace 
And view with Mem'ry's Eye his ev'ry Grace, 
I dare confess those Transports they inspir'd ; 
I lov'd with equal Pace as I admir'd : 
Lov'd yet revered — As Men on Beauty gaze, 
But find Desire chastis'd by Virtue's Blaze ; 
Such Awe dwelt round him, it awak'd a Fear ; 
Familiar Boldness durst not press too near ; 
Love & Respect their stated Limits knew. 
Respect decreas'd not as Affection grew. 



APPENDIX C 303 

In Port majestick, & in Aspect clear 
Candid, tho' grave ; reserv'd, but not severe. 
For Condescention softening decent State, 
Proclaim'd the Friendly, & preserv'd the Great. 

With what a charm did He his Thoughts dispense 
How temper the resistless Force of Sense ! 
Hold Wonder chain'd with fresh Delight to hear, 
And to attention tune the ravish' d Ear. 
Strong Eloquence, convey'd with winning Art, 
Surpriz'd, yet took Possession of the Heart. 
We doubted which we felt in most Excess, 
His Strength of Reasoning, or his mild Address. 

That Pleasure is no more : Penurious Fate 
Lends few great Blessings, & contracts their Date. 
Heav'n's choisest Gifts to swift Discomfort turn. 
We scarce can tast' em, e'er we're doom'd to mourn. 
Your Loss, my Lord, the common Lot transcends : 
All bury Fathers, but all lose not Friends. 
Such sympathy of Soul with Him you shar'd. 
Your Thoughts were kindred, as your Actions pair'd 
Congenial Virtues in two Bosoms shewn. 
Which Neither copied, each might call his Own. 
Thence Comfort dawns : that tho' of Him depriv'd 
I see the Patron in the Son reviv'd. 

Permit me, Sir, to turn my Eyes on You 
And hope new Pleasures rising to my View, 
Be, what your Father was ; & sweetly blend 
A double Grace, the Patron and the Friend ! 
But that's a private Wish : you must be more, 
And shine in all the Parts of Fame he bore : 
The Abstract of your Race ! in Whom we find 
The Statesman, Soldier, & the Scholar join'd ; 
Nor thought they so adorn'd our humble Bays, 
Wreath'd with their Laurells, stain'd the Warrior's Praise. 



304 APPENDIX C 

O for a Homer's Fire, or Virgil's Art, 
To breathe the Wishes of my ardent Heart ! 
An Heart that glows with such unfeign'd Desires, 
As Zeal oft prompts, but Flatt'ry ne'er inspires ! 
When that ignoble motive taints her Strain 
Punish the Muse, my Lord, with just Disdain. 

Fir'd with your noble Ancestor's Renown 
Born to outshine their Annals with your Own : 
Rich in their Honours, & enlarg'd of Soul, 
Come forth & emulate the mighty Roll. 
Come forth the pubUck Hope & publick Care ; 
And answ'ring ev'ry Wish, & ev'ry Prayer. 
Firm to the Rules w""^. Conscious Virtue lends ; 
Firm to your Country's Rights, & Honour's Friends : 
Scorning to bow you to a Court's Controul, 
With venal Voice against the Bent of Soul. 

Thus had I wish'd with Fondness void of Art, 
And deck'd you up a Boyle in ev'ry Part ; 
As if perhaps ambitiously, I meant 
To share those Glories I in Fancy lent ; 
But wishes come too late, & lost their Aim, 
For you prevent them & usurp your Fame. 
While tir'd Imagination laggs behind, 
Lab'ring to trace the Beauties of y"* Mind. 

Virtue unenvied, but divine Estate ! 
The rare, the best companion of the Great ! 
The Treasure of the Wise, that still expands 
And swells beneath the glorious Spendthrift's hands ! 
That when unwast'd still becomes the less. 
When blessing Others, does its Owner bless. 
This Wealth, my Lord, you hold in ample Store ; 
An ever-spreading undiminish'd Ore ! 
A shining Mass so properly your Own, 
Inherited, it seems deriv'd from None. 



APPENDIX C 305 

If on your private Stock you e'er refin'd ; 
Twas when to Boyle an Hamilton you join'd 
But if in That some Avarice you shew'd 
You grew a Miser for the publick Good. 

Long may She live, & still, as now, impart 
Joy to your Eyes, & Comfort to your Heart ! 
In such rare Union bounteous Heav'n is proud 
To mark its Fav'rites from th' unworthy Crowd. 
Still may that bounteous Heaven propitious shed 
Its choicest Influence on your Nuptial Bed ! 
And as the circhng Years their Course maintain, 
May each be fruitfull, till a blended Train 
Of beauteous Offspring your just Smiles divide ; 
The Mother's Rapture, & the Father's Pride ! 

Nor Thou, Boyle, disdain (when Time shall spare 
And yield you vacant from the Patriots Care :) 
In soft Paternal Pleasures to unbend : 
The tender Father & instructive Friend : 
While, pleas'd the blooming Heroes round you shine, 
Patricians all in Virtue, as in Line. 



Dear F[riend] 

I reced the pleasure of yours of 3^^ 25*^ of last instant & 
Ukewise the small packet of my remaining Letters by the 
Waggon, & will take care by That, w^^. sets out on Thursday 
next from Wood Street, to send you D^ Bentley's Milton, 
some of my Proposals, 6 blank Rec*^ & one fill'd up for 
the Earl of Tyrconnel. I beg you will make my Duty & 
Thanks acceptable to His Lords^. If He is pleas'd to in- 
sist that I may not have y® Honour of his Name in my printed 
List, I must, though with Reluctance, give way to his Com- 
mand: but, pray, recommend to his Lordship, that Shake- 



306 APPENDIX C 

speare I apprehend to be of no Party : & that I shall have 
the Names of many Persons of Quality very intimately 
attach'd to M"". Pope, & Advocates for all his Merit. I was 
informed by one of D^ Bentley's Friends, that he was hard 
& fast upon Homer. I am in great Expectations of something 
copious & elaborate upon the iEolick Digamma, because 
the D^ held forth upon it pretty warmly, when I waited 
upon him at Cambridge. ^^ I beg leave to assure you that 
I have vehement Longings after Paterculus & Arnobius 
in his turn. I thank you for your observation of the Greek 
Usage of the word KeLvos, 'tis certain they do employ it in 
the sense of ahsurdus; but does it ever w*^. them signify 
nugax, for in that Acceptation, you know, our Shakespeare 
puts Modern upon Us, in some passages. 

I am greatly indebted for your kind sentiments of my little 
Poem. My Lord, indeed, as my Patron, made the Whole 
set of them Golden Verses to me ; but he in his Generosity, 
& you in your partial Tenderness, I am sensible are both over 
indulgent to 

Dear S^ 

yo'" most affectionate Friend 
Wyan's Court. & obliged humble servant 

4 July 1732. Lew. Theobald 



Dear Friend 

I had designed you a letter by this post upon another 
Subject, but having just received yours of the 26 Inst. I 
will postpone the intended Theme, & hasten to execute your 

" Bentley was the first to show that the digamma existed at the 
time when the Homeric poems were composed. It is unfortunate 
that Theobald has not given us a more detailed account of his visit 
to the man from whom he learned his art. 



APPENDIX C 307 

Commands in the desired Transcript from Stobaeus. En 
passant, I doubt not but you well know the following Pre- 
faces & Laws are likewise preserved in Diod : Siculus. H. 
XII cap 3 & that there are 2 elaborate Chapters by 
Bentley (in his Controversy with Boyle) to prove both 
Zaleucus & Charondas spurious. ... I have, you'll observe, 
Dear Sir, not knowing what use you were to make of it, been 
rather redundant in my Transcript, than you should want 
any part of it. You'll please to let me know, if the Version 
of Gesner be of any Service to you, or any Transcript 
from Diodorus Siculus, or anything else, & without the 
least Scruple command the Pen of. Dearest Sir 

y^ most affectionate & obliged Friend & Servant 

Lew : Theobald 
Wyans Court 29 July 1732. 

I presume anon I shall enjoy the airoaooaafiaTa of your 
Paterculus. Pray don't let L^ Tyrconnel slip through our 
Fingers as he has once given his Promise. 



My Dear Friend 

My very trifling Concerns in Kent have obliged me 
to be for some time a Wanderer, or I had much sooner 
confess'd the Favour of your last. The Iambics of Critias 
you shall command when Occasion, translated in y® best 
Manner that I can give them you. My Sextus Empiricus 
is of Sylburgius, but I'll take Care to have the particular 
Verses collated with Fabricius' Edition. I came home with 
Pleasure designing to have tun'd a congratulatory Muse, 
against E. of Orrery's Return from Ireland ; but to my great 
Concern that Theme is disappointed, for poor dear Lady 



308 APPENDIX C 

Orrery is dead. If I groan inwardly for this Loss ; you will 
be pleased, I am sure, to hear, that Shakespeare is now 
groaning under two Presses. As you encouraged me now & 
then to throw in an occasional Philological Note in this 
Work : I'll submit one to you in which I have attempted 
Hesychius. I beg, you know, freely your Censure & would 
by no Means be thought, in a pedantic Ostentation desirous 
to trouble any Readers with Criticism that may turn to my 
own Disreputation. I therefore the more earnestly entreat 
y^ impartial Decision. I'll give you the Whole Note & 
valeat quantum valere potest. 

Merr. Wives. Ac. I. Sc. 3. I combat challenge of this 
Latin Bilboe.] Our Modern Editors have distinguished this 
Word (Latin) in Italic Characters, as if it was address'd to 
S'" Hugh & meant to call him pedantic Blade, on account of 
his being a Schoolmaster & teaching Latine. But I'll be 
bold to say, in this they do not take the Poet's Conceit. 
Pistol barely calls S'" Hugh mountain-Foreigner on account 
of his interposing in the Dispute : but then immediately 
demands the Combat of Slender for having charg'd him with 
picking his Pocket. The old 4*°^ write it Latten as it should 
be in the common Characters : & as a Proof that the Author 
designed this should be addressed to Slender, S'' Hugh does 
not there interpose one Word in the Quarrel. But what 
then signifies Latten Bilboe? Why, Pistol seeing Slender 
such a slim puny Wight would intimate that he is as thin 
as a Plate of that compound Metal w^^ is called Latten ; & 
which was as we are told the old Orichalc. Mons Dacier 
upon the verse of Horace De Arte Poetica — Tibia non ut 
nunc Orichalco vincta etc — says, est une espece de cuivre 
de Montague, come son nom meme le temoigne; c'est ce 
que nous appellons aujourd'huy du Leton. It is a sort of 
mountain copper as its very name imports & w*' we at this 
day call latten. Scaliger upon Festus had said the same 



APPENDIX C 309 

thing. The MetalUsts tell us it is Copper mingled with 
Lapis Calammaris. . . . ^^ 

I am 

dearest Sir 
Wyan's Court Y^ most affectionate & 

19 Sept 1732. humble Servant 

Lew. Theobald. 



My dear Friend, 

You are very good in making those allowances you mention 
for my long Silence; & indeed, (besides that I have been 
unwilling to trouble you with meer Postage ;) true Friend- 
ship, like yours, could not but make me those allowances, 
could you know the Succession of all those Fatigues. I 
confess freely to you, & without affectation, what with my 
own private affairs & negociations for others, what with 
the necessary Attendances I am obliged to give at Levees & 
y* constant Attachment to w^*^. I am pinned down in the Cor- 
rection of Shakespeare, my poor weak Head, as the Captain 
says in Macbeth, is like a Cannon overcharged. However 
I had broke the chain of Business sooner to confess the 
Favour of yours w*^. the Httle Bill at Top (w*'^. was properly 
honour' d) but y* I have been so excessively ill as not to 
be able to hold my Head down to Paper. Our great Town 
has of late been almost universally oppressed with an ugly 
comphcated Cold, w"^^. has attacked me w*^. all its trouble- 
som Severities : but I thank God, I have pretty well mastered 
the Difficulty. My Author goes on apace ; & I hope in six 
Weeks the Presses will get through the sev'n Volumes. You 
say, you are desirous to have a sett of the small Paper : 

18 The rest of the letter is occupied with an emendation of Hesychius, 
which can be found in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 228. 



310 APPENDIX C 

but don't imagine, My dear Friend, you shall not be as well 
intitled to it, as the Sett of Royal. To urge the Paying for 
it, would be as bad as to insist on paying for your Wine at 
a Friend's Table. If you have Luck with any one Receipt 
I beg you will be so good to repay Yourself thereout ; or I 
will find some Opportunity to ballance y^ Acco*^ I should 
be glad to know. Dear Sir, if Lord Tyrconnel has conceded 
to stand in the List : or whether I must be content with his 
Money tacito nomine. I promise myself now shortly to 
sit down upon y^ fine Synopsis, w''^. you so modestly call 
the Skeleton of Preface ; after w^^. I shall be at Leisure to 
give you a cool Dissertation on the great pleasure I feel in 
y^. Commendatory on Vellerius Paterculus. I drank 
your Health heartily w*^. our Friend M^ Attorney-General ^^ 
before he went for Jamaica, & am in great Impatience to 
hear of his safe Arrival. I hope I shall succeed him in 
S^ W"". Yonge's good Offices, when Time serves ; S^ Robert 
Walpole has been so good to turn me over to him as a Re- 
membrancer & Intercessor for me to his Favour. But 
these Prospects yet deo)v ev yovacn Keirai. But to pass from 
these Affairs to a little better Entertainment : a passage, 
w^^. was canvass'd betwixt Us, & w''^. I think I found out the 
Joak of but the other day while the Press waited. That I 
may have Room to give it you, I will at once confess Myself 

Dearest Sir 

Your most affectionate 
Wyan's Court obliged Friend & Serv*. 

10 Jan^y. 1732. [1733] Lew : Theobald. 

Love's Lab' : lost. p. 294. 

You will be scrap'd out of the painted cloth for this : 
your Lion that holds the Poll-ax sitting on a Close 
Stool will be given to Ajax : he will be then the Ninth 
Worthy. 

" Concanen. 



APPENDIX C 311 

I had discover'd, you may remember, y* Alexander's Arms 
as one of the Worthies were here alluded to : but upon Alex- 
ander's being foil'd how the Jeast turn'd upon giving his 
Arms to Ajax, I was perfectly at a Loss to guess : & it was 
your Opinion that no J oak was intended any further than the 
plain obvious Sense. But observe the word Closestool, & 
then let us turn our Eyes on the Speaker. Costard, the 
Clown, seems to have a Conceit very much of a Piece with 
his Character. If so the Name of Ajax is equivocally used 
by him, & he must mean : The Insignia of such a Conqueror, 
as the Curate's stupid Representation exhibited, ought to 
be given to A-j ax: i.e. A Jakes : Sit Verbo Reverentia ! 
The same sort of Conundrum is used by B. Jonson, I know, 
at the Close of his Poem, call'd The Famous Voyage : 

And I could wish for their Eterniz'd Sakes 
My Muse had plow'd with his that sung A-jax. 

I [was] to venture the Conjecture, before my Health would 
permit me to communicate it; but I hope,^*^ . . . not 
over-strain' d. 



My dear Friend, 

I should have a thousand Apologies to make, might I 
not persuade myself, you do not stand on Punctilios w*^. 
me for not answering so precisely in time, for the Reasons 
pleaded on my Side in my Last : And to those I have for 
some Time past had the additional Fatigue of bringing my 
Tragedy on, w^^. is to make its Appearance immediately 
after Easter Holidays. I am to make my Acknowledg- 
ments, Dear S""., for the little Bill by w^*^. I am honour'd 
w*^. your 3 Subscribers. For One of them you'll please to 

20 MS. is torn. 



312 APPENDIX C 

join, to your own Thanks, mine to good M^ Taylor. I 
drank your Health lately w*^. D^ Stukely, who puts me 
in Hopes of your coming to London with him about August 
next. No News yet of our dear Friend Concanen ; whose 
safe Arrival at Jamaica I am impatient to hear of. As 
to Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to adver- 
tise, that it will be ready to be deliver' d to the Subscribers 
by the latter end of next Month. You will find, I 
have had the good Luck to enrich my List w*^ her Royal 
Highness, the Princess Royal, & many Names of the high- 
est Distinction. I had a Design as I believe I told you, 
of prefixing a Dedication to every Volume; but my Lord 
Orrery has been beforehand w*^. me, & bespoke a part of 
its Patronage ; & I think I can do no less than compliment 
him w*^. the Whole, turn my Address into an Epistle Dedi- 
catory, (more Drydenians) & therein couch all I have to 
say of my Author & the Edition. I must tell you, while 'tis 
in my Memory, of a Mistake or two we had like to have run 
into, w''^. Time & Casual Conversation have prevented. 

3 Henry vi But while he thought to steal the single Ten, 
p. 27L The King was slily finger'd from the Deck. 

You thought there wanted a Consonance of the Metaphors 
here, & advis'd. Pack. But Deck, it seems is a county 
Dialect : & thus in Lancashire, & generally in the Northern 
Parts, it is confirm'd to me that they call the Pack & Stock 
of Cards. So no alteration is requisite. 

Again Othello. The Food, that to him now is as luscious as 
p. 345. Locusts, shall shortly be as bitter as 
Coloquintida. You advis'd Lohock, as a proper contrast to 
Coloquintida. But being, dear Sir, in company w*^. D^ 
Beauford, he casually gave me the Fruit of the Locust-tree 
to taste of, w*'^. is most egregiously luscious & the very Tree 



APPENDIX C 313 

we have growing at Russell-house in our own Street. So 
that as Coloquintida is the Fruit of a wild Gourd of bitter 
Taste, the Fruit of the Locust w''^. is sweet comes more pecu- 
Uarly in contrast. Will you forgive me if I should intimate 
an ignorant suspicion? Perhaps, the Locusts w*'^. (with Wild 
Honey) were S*. John's Diet in the Wilderness, might be 
the Fruit of this Tree. For tho, I know, in Arabia & many 
other Oriental Parts they eat the Animal call'd the Locust, 
yet they eat it as a compounded Substance : They dried it 
thoroughly, pounded it into a Bran, & then work'd it up in 
their Bread : w*'^. could not be our holy Hermit's Case. 
Sed kirkx^' 

The next Observation, Dear Sir, gives me Occasion of 
applauding your great Sagacity in a minute point, tho' it 
happens there is no Occasion for making Use of it. 

Macbeth 2 Murth. He needs not to mistrust, 
p. 226. 

You very ingeniously prescribe — We need not to mistrust. 
But Pope's Ignorance had sophisticated the Text. The old 
Copies have it — He needs not Our Mistrust, i.e. the Mistrust 
of Us. w*'^. answers the purpose of your Correction. — Nam- 
ing that little Gentleman gives me an Opportunity of telling 
you he is most handsomely depicted in a severe Poem by 
Lady Mary W. Mountague,^^ occasion'd by his late Imitation 
of Horace in a Dialogue betwixt him and his Learned Counsel. 
But now, to release you. I am 

Dearest S^ 

Yo'" ever affectionate, 
as obliged humble Serv*. 
Lew: Theobald. 
Wyan's Court. 
10 Mar. 1732. [1733] 

21 Verses addressed to an Imitator of Horace, 1733. 



314 APPENDIX C 

Dear Sir 

I have the pleasure of yours of y® 23^ Instant & am to 
account for my late long Silence from two Causes : a Desire 
not to be superfluous, in troubling you with an idle Letter ; 
& a stronger Desire w*^^. I had of waiting till I could inform 
you of the Close of Shakespeare. But such has been the 
State of printing with Us this last Season, y* with all the 
Industry & Sollicitation imaginable on my part, I have not 
yet been able to bring it to the wish'd Period. However 
the Comfort is, Hamlet & Othello are All y*. want to be 
compleated. The Source of this slow Proceeding, Dear 
Sir, has been this. The great Number of our weekly Sub- 
scriptions, set on Foot by Journeymen Printers has caus'd 
such a general Desertion of them from the estabhsh'd Presses, 
& rendered them so very peremptory & insolent, that it has 
been half the Work of the Printers to hawk out for Men; 
so y* tho' I reced 8 Sheets per Week from each Press at my 
setting out, that Number has been too often reduc'd to Two. 
This is a Fact so well known with Us in Town, y * as I advertised 
y* compleat Volumes might be seen at my House, to the 
Intent the Diffident might have y^ Opportunity of convincing 
themselves, I hope my Subscribers will do me the Justice 
to make this Distinction that I am the Editor, & not the 
Printer : so, at least they will allow for a Delay w^^. cannot 
be thrown at my Door; & so, not be too busie with my 
Reputation. I cannot omitt the present Opportunity of 
acquainting you with the Motto I have purposed. My 
Friends seem to reckon it a lucky One ; but I shall suspend 
my own Opinion, till it has your Concurrence. It is This 
Line from our Master Virgil. 

I, Decus, i, nostrum; melioribus utere Fatis. 
It will be no bad Compliment, I presume, to call Shakespeare 
the Glory of our English Poets ; nor no extra vant Self-praise, 



APPENDIX C 315 

I hope, to suppose, I am giving the best Edition of him the 
Pubhck has yet had. The Respects of my httle Family 
wait you ; & believe me to be most sincerely 

Dearest Sir, 

Your truely obHged Friend & 
faithfuU humble Servant 
Lew : Theobald. 
Wyans Court 
30 June 1733 



My dear Friend, 

I have reced the Pleasure of yo'^^ of y® 2P* Instant, 
& am proud to hear my good Lord Orrery has so fair & just 
a Report from his Fellow-Collegiate; & no less pleas'd, y* 
you are so well satisfied with my Motto. As to the Essays 
on Man, I don't know what to tell you with certainty. Many 
of his Intimates have taken Pains to deny Pope's Title to 
them ; tho' I heard but yesterday, that y® 3 parts are reprint- 
ing & together w*^ one more additional part, & some new 
Poems, are to be swell'd to 2 Volumes & make their Appear- 
ance in his Name next Season. This Opportunity just offers 
(before y® Revise comes to me) to consult you upon a Passage 
in Hamlet, w^^. never was canvass'd betwixt us. p. 310. 

Being thus benetted round with Villains, 
E're I could make a Prologue to my Brains, 
They had begun the Play. 

I had made a Query in my Margin, but solv'd this odd Ex- 
pression to Myself thus, "ere I could in my Brain, or 
Thoughts, frame a Prologue &c." Btit then what was this 



316 APPENDIX C 

Prologue to be fram'd to? M"". Chisselden the Surgeon,^^ 
(whom, however, I have no Liberty to name), tells me it 
should be, 

E're I could make a Prologue to my Banes, 

i.e. my Misfortunes, the Dilemma's I was under — they 
had an actual Commission for his Death, before he had 
devis'd any Expedient how to avoid the Danger. — I 
shall be impatient of your Opinion upon it. I have taken y® 
Liberty to dissent from a Correction of Yours in Antony ; 
but I hope, w*^. such Reason as you'll be willing to accede 
to. p. 35. 

I'll raise the preparation of a War, 

Shall STAIN your Brother. 

You very justly observe, that it was a very odd way of satis- 
fying his Wife, to tell her he should raise a Preparation for 
War, y*. should stain, i.e. cast an Odium, on her Brother. 
You therefore advise. Shall STAYE your Brother, i.e. keep 
him back from invading Me. I read 

Shall STRAIN your brother, i.e. put him to all his Shifts, 
lay him under such Constraints, that he shall not be able to 
injure me. For Plutarch, expressly says, Octavius was so 
stagger'd at Antony's preparations, y*. he was afraid of being 
reduced to fight him y* Season ; & the Taxes & Exactions 
demanded were so severe & grievous, — (Every Man 
being sess'd in a Fourth of his Goods & Revenues ; & the 
very Libertines oblig'd forthwith to raise an Eighth of 
their Substance) y*. all Italy murmur'd, & grudg'd their 

22 William Cheselden (1688-1752), one of the greatest of British 
surgeons, because of some remarkable operations became known to 
many eminent persons. He was intimately acquainted with Pope 
and is mentioned in "Imitations of Horace." This accounts for the 
fact that he did not allow his name to be mentioned, and later refused 
to assist Theobald in any way. 



APPENDIX C 317 

Contributions : & Octavius himself was full of many Wants, 
& at a loss how to supply them. 

I am my dear Friend 

Your most affectionate 
Wyan's Court & faithfuU humble Serv*. 

28 July. 1733. Lew. Theobald 

Have I leave for printing L^. 
Tyrconnel's Name? — And 
Do you & D"". Stukely hold y® Intentions 
of visiting London this next August ? 



My Dear Friend 

I have received the Pleasure of yours of the 9*^ Instant (as 
well as the two preceding Ones occasionally mentioned) 
& will take the best & speediest Care in obeying your Com- 
mands with regard to the two Books you write about. Your 
demanding back your Papers on Paterculus has refreshed my 
Pleasure in giving them a parting View : & I am sure you 
will readily permit me to object to a single Correction, or to 
have the Favour of being better inform'd by you. Li II 
Chap, cm — tum repulsit certa spes liberorum parentibus, 
viris MATRIMONIORUM, dominis patrimonii etc. 
You would substitute MATRONARUM. I confess, 
as yet I think the Text genuine, & have always understood 
it thus, that Parents might now hope to enjoy their Children, 
in Safety, Husbands to keep their Wives to themselves, & 
Men to possess their own Estates. Matrimonium, pro uxore, 
I think is very frequently usM by the Classics. Luc. Flor. 
1. I. c.I. itaque Matrimonia a finitimis petita ; quia non 
impetrabantur, manu capta sunt. 

Justin. L. 3. C. 3 Virgines sine dote nubere jussit ; ut uxores 
legerentur, non pecuniae : Severiusque matrimonia, sua 



318 APPENDIX C 

viri coercerent, cum nullis dotis froenis tenerentur. Idem 
li. 3. c. 5. Qui tribus proeliis fusos eo usque desperationis 
Spartanos adduxit, ut ad supplementum exercitus servos 
suos manumitterent, hisque interfectorum matrimonia pol- 
licerentur, Idem li 18. c. 5. Harum igitur ex numero eo 
admodum Virgines raptas Navibus imponi Elissa jubet ut 
et juventus matrimonia, et urbs sobolem habere posset. 
And we find both conjugium & connuhium used in the self 
same acceptation. Justin li 43. c. 3. Tunc et vicinis con- 
nubia pastorum dedignantibus, virgines Sabinae rapiuntur. 
Ausonius, in Epicedio. Conjugium per lustra novem, sine 
crimine, concors unum habui : gnatos quatuor edidimus. 
Virgil AE. II. 519 Conjugiumque, domumque, patres, 
natosque videbit. Idem. AEn. III. 295. 
Priamidem Helenum Graias regnare per urbes, conjugio 
Alacidae Pyrrhi sceptrisque potitum. In like manner, 
you know, Servitia is used for servi, Scelus for Scelestus, 
Ergastula for servi, (sic) Militia for Milites, senatus for 
Senatores, juventus for juvenes, conjuratio for conjurati, 
clientela for clientes etc etc etc. And now as to Shakes- 
peare, Dear Sir, w*'^ you so kindly enquire after. I thank 
God, the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, & nothing re- 
maining to do but the dedication. Preface & list. As I am 
obliged to defend literal criticism a little, a casual turning 
over of Sir George Wheler's journey through Greece, Con- 
stantinople etc. gives me a fair occasion of animadverting 
upon that Gentleman's Negligence or want of Talent in 
this point. ^^ . . . But I must have fully tired you by this 
time, & ought at once to release you by confessing myself, 
Dear Sir your truely affectionate & humble Servant 

Lew. Theobald 
Wyan's Court, 17 Octo^ 1733 

23 I have omitted the emendations on the inscriptions copied by 
Wheler, which may be found in the preface to Theobald's edition of 
Shakespeare. 



APPENDIX C 319 



My Dear Friend 

I have just now reced the pleasure of yours & am tempted 
to reply to it at a heat. It gives me great Satisfaction, 
y^ you approve my Attempts upon the Greek Inscriptions. 
Your Conjectures upon the votive Table give me fresh 
room for Criticisms, as your objections, perhaps have in- 
spired me to the true Reading. You offer in the 2°^ Verse, 
ZHNA XEIPAS TTpos TON ojvlov eKirerdaas. But, I am afraid 
this makes two false quantities in our Pentameter. The 
1^* may easily be cured by reading Zrjva x^pas ; but top com- 
ing before a word beginning with a Vowel, & without an 
Aspirate, will be for ever short in Scansion. As I have 
struck out a quite different Conceit, I'll once more trouble 
you with the corrupted Reading Zrjva Kara irpcorON ^viajLov 
eKTreracras tirl Kvaveas divas dpofiovs. The 12N & ON seem a 
Reduplication of one & the same Syllable from the Care- 
lessness of the stone cutter, or S"" George's transcript ; but 
then, how by the same inaccuracy should wvlov be depraved 
into covLaTLov? I believe I was too licentious in the use of 
eKweTaaas & therefore we'll now tie him down to his native 
Construction. I'll correct if you approve it. Zrjva Kara 
7rpajrl2N; Icftlov eKireraaas Kvaveals dLvyatv e7rt5po/iON. 
The alteration now is very minute & the sense will be thus: 
Invocet aliquis ventum secujidum a puppi, 

Jovem vero a 

prima parte Navis (vel, in primis, praecipue) dum ex- 
pandat Velum accursorium super coeruleos Vortices etc. 
The Epidromos, you know, is the particular name of a sail 
at y® Prow of a vessel. Your other conjecture, kirl Kvaveovs 
Auj/as dpofjLovs, I think can never stand at y^ beginning of 
an Hexameter. Sir George Wheeler, in his explanation of 
this inscription, led me into y® notion of the Cyanean 
Islands. You very dexterously guess that 'Evdvdrj might 



320 APPENDIX C 

be y® name of a Female ; but then the nominative placed 
betwixt Bade t6v and t6v det Bebv, & then the accusatives 
(fyiXovvr' ayadrjv divided from their substantive by 'kvrnrarpov 
TTols cFTTjue renders the position very harsh & the sense too 
obscured & inelegant for the other parts of this little poem : 
nor tho^ evavOii may not be the epithet generally appro- 
priated to y® True God by the Greek Christians because 
apphed to Idols, am I satisfied, that a poetical devotee (& 
perhaps a new convert) might not indulge himself in using 
it. For the sake of my more illiterate Readers, I have 
attempted to put the whole in an EngUsh Dress. A Servile 
version, I presume, will not be judged requisite. 

Invoke who will the Prosprous Gale behind, 

Jove at the prow, while to the guiding wind 

O'er the Blue Billows He the sail expands. 

Where Neptune with each wave heaps hills of Sands: 

Then let him, when his backward course he plows, 

Pay to his Statued God unaiding vows. 

But to the God of Gods, for Death's o'erpast, 

For Safety rendered on the watry Waste, 

To native Shores returned, does Philo raise : 

This Monument of Thanks & grateful Praise. 

Some time next month. Dear Sir, Shakespeare will make 
his appearance : & then I shall need a Vulcanian Armour 
to defend against repeated attacks. But if I have not great 
cause to blush, I'll endeavour to make my mind easie, & 
keep my temper unruffled. Chisselden has lent me no 
manner of Assistance ; nor in this have I been disappointed, 
for I expected nothing from him. I am extremely pleased 
that I happen to be right in my remark on Matrimoniorum: 
if you insist upon it, I will with great pleasure resurvey all 
the other emendations & conjectures. But I am afraid, 



APPENDIX C 321 

or should be that I pester you too much with these minute 
Semi-Criticales. But y^ Fatigue is repaid to me in the 
satisfaction of hearing from you, than which nothing can 
afford greater pleasure to 

Dearest Sir 
y'" ever obliged as faithful! 
Wyan's Court humble Ser* 

25*^ October 1733. Lew. Theobald 



[To Mr. Tonsori] 
Sir. 24 

As I have very few days left before I must close my list, 
I beg for these next six Days, Shakespeare may every day 
be advertised in Daily post, Daily Journal, & Daily Ad- 
vertiser, & in the Evening Posts. (These infrequent & 
scattering Advertisements Do me no manner of service). 

1 have sent a Number of my printed advertisements here- 
with for this purpose. The Compliments of the Season 
attend you from 

Sir 

Your very humble 
Wyan's Court Servant 

2 Jan^y. 1733. [1734] Lew : Theobald 



My Dear Friend, 

I defer'd replying to the Favour of yours of y® 30 Jan'y 
till I could inform you y*. I had sent down yo^ Books, w*'^. 
set out w*^. Newbal's Waggon on Monday last. You will re- 
ceive 2 Parcells ; in One, a Royal Paper Sett bound, for 

« British Museum, add. MSS. 28275, f. 310. 



322 APPENDIX C 

Yourself, & 3 Setts on Demy ; & in the other, a Royal Set 
in sheets for D''. Taylor, & 3 more Setts on Demy. At 
the Top of this 2*^ Parcell you will find the Papers you fa- 
vour'd me w*^. on Paterculus, because you say you want 
them. 

I had purpos'd now Shakespeare is off my Hands, to 
obey you in considering them very strictly ; & if it can be 
worth & y* you will take the Trouble to remitt a Copy of 
them by one, or two, in a letter, as Leisure & Paper will 
extend, I will w**". the utmost Freedom, to my Power, 
give you my impartial Thoughts of each. A propos, to 
one in particular y* occurs to me Lib. IL cap. cxiii. Ille 
ad pair em patriae expect ato revolavit maturius. You seem 
much better reconcil'd to this Phrase than many of the 
Editors. I confess it always stuck with me as a flat Read- 
ing, & too stale a piece of Flattery. I have suspected the 
Complement was intended another Way : & that y® Author 
would insinuate, Tiberius was as much a Darling adopted 
Son of Augustus. I would read therefore Ille ad Patrem, 
Patriamque, &c. His Country was as much transported 
in his unexpected Return, as his Father. Velleius has 
chose this Manner of Expression upon some other Occasions. 
L.2 c. 100. Juha relegata in Insulam, PATRIAEQUE et 
PARENTUM subducta Oculis. — & again c. 120. Ar- 
minio territo, quem arguisse PATER et PATRIA contenti 
erant, &c. I don't know whether I am right : but I was 
wilUng to offer it to your better Consideration. 

The Rec* w'^^ you return me for Aeschylus I will keep 
safely for you : since (by God's Leave) I mean to print y* 
Work off this ensueing Summer. I thank you heartily for 
yo"" kind Promise of collecting in your Friends' 2^ Paym*. It 
will be of singular Service to me. You are very good 
in accounting for, or rather excusing, my Silence. I assure 
you faithfully, neither Indolence nor Neglect has been the 



APPENDDC C 323 

Parent of it ; but a Strict and Painful Attention to the 
closing of Shakespeare. I have been silent, indeed, too 
upon another Motive y* gave me some little Uneasiness. 
I intrusted M'". Prevost w*^ your letter of Directions ab*. 
getting the two French Books for You. He is turn'd out a 
Bankrupt, & had lost y® Letter; but I have agen recovered 
it & commission'd Paul Vaillant who I daresay will soon 
procure the Books for you. I am at present a sort of Shop- 
keeper, in deliver^ out all my Subscription Books at home ; 
but in a little Time I hope to have ample Leisure & Oppor- 
tunity for conversing with you, & confessing Myself, Dear 
Sir 

Your most affectionate & 
Wyan's Court faithful! humble servant 

12 Febry. 1733. [1734] Lew. Theobald. 

P.S. If the having back the Letters you wrote to me on 
Shakespeare is of any Particular Use to You, you'll give 
me Leave first to order a Transcript of them, for They are 
so much a Tally to mine, y* Mine are render'd useless with- 
out Them: & besides there is a rich vein of Oar yet un- 
drain'd. 



My dear Friend 

I have the pleasure of yours, & receiv'd by it infinite 
satisfaction to find, that Shakespeare in the Gross makes 
a tolerable figure in your Eye. What Character it will 
bear in general, is a point on which I will not venture to 
determine. The Cynicks have not yet open'd : when 
they begin to bark, we'll begin to look to the Strength of 
our Shelters. But if our Adversaries have a mind to draw 
out Faults in Parade, I am of Opinion with you that we 



324 APPENDIX C 

need not decline to take the field. I wonder, you should 
think you have any obhgations to acknowledge for the 
grateful! Confessions I have endeavoured to make. They 
are duties that do me as much solid honour as they afford 
me sincere pleasure. I will not pretend, it was a debt 
politickly paid ; but I find, it has entail'd this rich Conse- 
quence, y^ it has given me a Right (through your generous 
Grant) to demand all your Capacities for my Service: An 
aid y* I preferr to all the Cabal of Pope's Friends, however 
numerous they may be, junctosque umbone phalanges. 
What you mention as to my having adopted passages in 
my preface, w^^ you had shewn long ago to have been of 
your composure, gives me no cause of blushing. Let those 
preacquainted Friends frankly know, I embraced them in a 
just preference to what I could myself produce on the 
Subject. They came a free Gift to me; & as Menander 
finely observes, ra tcov <f>i\oi)v kolv^ ov fibvov ra xpw^to,, /cat 
vov de Kal <t>pov7]ae(jos KOLvcovla. Nor would I have chose 
tacitly to usurp the Reputation of them : but as I formerly 
hinted, & you join'd with me in sentiment, it would have 
looked too poor to have confess' d Assistances towards so 
shght a Fabrick as my Preface. As to D"" Bentley (what- 
ever the penetration of some readers may devine on this 
head) in Shaking off the Similitude betwixt our tasks, I 
hope that neither he, nor his Friends will see cause to sus- 
pect any Sneer. The Stating the Difference was absolutely 
necessary on my own side, & I think I have avoided saying 
anything derogatory on his. As to the Omissions I have 
so frequently made, in Both our Notes, to confess freely, 
I easily foresaw there would arise Occasion for Improve- 
ments on Shakespeare : & if I have given enough to awake 
the Expectation of the publick, 'tis neither a fraud, nor 
bad poUcy, to keep a good Fund in Reserve. You are 
very kind to attribute them to your loose unmethodical 



APPENDIX C 325 

papers, as you are pleas 'd to call them. To say a word to 
your intention of composing a full & compleat Critic on 
Shakespeare, I own, it would be a treasure to me to see 
it : but to speak for the World, & throw off those pre- 
possessions w^^ I have for our Author, I am afraid, the 
generality will regard him as too irrgular a Writer to deserve 
such a critic. I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike 
you. The Major part of them, I believe, will stand their 
ground. But in one of them I have been most miserably 
mistaken. I mean miserably, as not knowing a Fact : as 
a Schollar & Conjecturer at large, I think the Mistake 
will not affect me in Credit. It is the Votive Table, as I 
called it, w^^ led me into the Error; & for your Enter- 
tainment, I'll give you a separate Letter, in w^^ the Whole 
shall be set right & explain'd. I with great pleasure em- 
brace the Review of your efforts on Paterculus : & they 
cannot visit me too soon. I thank you for the Repetition 
of your Advice w*^ regard to the text of Aeschylus : &, I 
will consult the opinions of what Connoisseurs we have here, 
to determine the question for Me. By the way, Stanley's 
Text, tho' the best, is not so accurate as you imagine, & 
I have done much on the Chorus's by adjusting the Metre 
of the Strophes & Antistrophes to each other, in which that 
very learned Man was negligent or thought it was too trivial 
a Reformation. I own, the Rythmus seems to me the most 
certain Basis of Correction. I had like to have forgot 
answering your question, as to Shakespeare's poems, whether 
they are so good as to engage your thorough Attention in 
Reading. I dare not promise & vow for them all in the Bulk. 
I could wish them more equal : but still, to invite you, there 
are pecuUar Douceurs in them ; there is Scope for Conjec- 
ture & Explanation : & Adonis & Tarquin to my taste are 
the sweetest Poems y* I have ever seen. And now. My 
Dear Friend, with all your fund of Alacrity about you, I 



326 



APPENDIX C 



embrace your Challenge. Write as often as you dare, & 
I will not be silent. The Spring invites to open the Cam- 
paign ; & let's be as true generals as if we were paid for it ; 
draw out our forces, tho' against Stone-Walls. Some of 
our Artillery may possibly fly : but some other will batter & 
make a breach. 

I am 

Dearest Sir 
Yo'" most affectionate & 
obUg'd Friend & humble 
Wyan's Court Serv* 

5 March 1733 [1734]. Lew. Theobald 

P.S. I am in no pain 
for spare me, James — in spite of 
Philip Sparrow. 



My dear Friend 

I hope according to the old Style & Fashion, This will 
find you as well as I am present. The Reason y* I did not 
trouble you w*** acknowledging yo'' Hints on the Grubb, 
wrote on the Road, was, y* we had previously determin'd 
not to make any Reply; that I therefore imagined them 
struck out for Amusement & flatter'd myself I should have 
been saluted at yo'^ coming home, on the Contents of mine 
w*'^. waited you there : tho', indeed, if I remember, it de- 
manded no answer. Since I had the Pleasure of your 
Company, I have been doubly engag'd : Partly, w*^. Trans- 
scripts for my Lord Orrery ; & partly w*^. making my In- 
terest for a Benefit-Play given me as Editor of Shakespeare, 
for the Entertainment of the Grand Master & Society of 
Free-Masons. 

By the Way as you are so good to re Joyce in all my good 



APPENDIX C 327 

Fortunes, I must let you know that the Prince of Wales 
generously order' d me 20 Guineas for his Sett of Shakes- 
peare ; & y* my Lord Orrery made me y® Complim* of 100 
Guineas for the Dedication. I hope, the Work is rising in 
Reputation : I have much said to me on that Side of y® 
Question; & nothing in Detraction, since the idle Invec- 
tive you saw. I should not have made this Report, but to 
a Party concern'd ; & to obey a particular Injunction. And 
so much for y* Author at Present. I'll trouble you, Dear 
Sir, to look into a Passage for Me, out of Milton's Lycidas. 
I own I am entirely in the Dark as to the Circumstances, 
hinted at, et Davus sum, non Oedipus. 

Ay me ! Whilst Thee the Shores & sounding Seas 
Wash far away, where-e're thy Bones are hurl'd. 
Whether beyond the stormy Hebrides, 
Where Thou perhaps under the whelming Tide 
Visit'st the Bottom of the monstrous World ; 
Or whether Thou, to our moist Vows deny'd, 
Sleep' st hy the Fable of Bellerus old, 
Where the great Vision of the guarded Mount 
Looks Namancos J & Bayona's § hold : &c 

To sleep by a Fable — A Vision that looks — a guarded 
Mount — Namancos — (Die quibus in terris) . These may 
be all right, but they are all Mysteries to me : nor do I know 
one Tittle of Bellerus Old. I know that Milton in all his 
allusions is ever full of what we may call Learning, or, at 
least, Reading : for, indeed, he as often trades in Romance 
as in Classical Materials ; and if I am not greatly mistaken 
the Fable of Bellerus & the Vision of the guarded Mount 
seem of the stamp of Amadis du Gaule, or some of y* Tribe 
of Rhapsodists. But I shall be happy in a better Informa- 
t Naymancos (Theob.) § Boyona's (Theob.) 



328 APPENDIX C 

tion from you, because I much admire this sweet little Poem : 
& therefore will not take off yo"". Application from a Com- 
ment on it by the intermingUng any other Matter whatever, 
than that I am Dear Sir 

y truely affec. as oblig'd 
Wyan's Court. Friend & humble servant 

9 May 1734. Lew : Theobald. 



My dear Friend, 

In yours of y® 17*^ Instant you told me of some Visits 
you were going to pay, & therefore I forebore replying till 
I might imagine you return' d. I have had a dreadful! 
Interval of Anxiety; for my little Boy was seiz'd w*^ the 
Small Pox, of the confluent Kind; & for 12 days we had 
scarce the least Hopes of his Life ; but by the Care of D'". 
Mead & the Kindness of Nature, I thank God, we now 
think he is out of all Danger. 

I am oblig'd to you for your Informations concerning Bel- 
lerus, Naymancos, &c : tho' I have not been able yet to 
proffit from them. Boyona's Hold, I presume to mean some 
Fortress on the Boyne ; but as to Bellerus, Naymancos, & 
the guarded Mount, I have derived no Light; tho' I have 
turn'd over page by Page, D^ Keating's general History 
of Ireland in fol : (w''^. is full throughout of fabulous Trash, 
but has no Mention of the Fable requir'd) ; S^ James Ware's 
De Hibernia et Antiquitatibus ejus, Disquisitiones 8^° 
Lond : 1654 ; as also his Rerum Hibernicorum Annales, 
fol. Dublin. 1664. There is, I know, in Hartley's Cata- 
logus Universalis, mention'd a 2^ Edition of Ware's Antiq- 
uities in 1668, said to be a 4^^-part enlarg'd from the first. 
Whether the Fable of Bellerus &c be contain'd amongst 
those Additions, I don't know : nor can meet w*^^ y® Book. 



APPENDIX C 329 

By the Notices you have given me, I suppose, it is either 
in yo"": Custody or in yo^. Neighbourhood. Whichever 
of the two is the case, I shall be extreamly glad of a Trans . . .^^ 
of what is said concerning this obscure Fable. 

The omitted 50 Remarks & Explanations, y* you have 
transcribed, you may please to send me at yo*". best Leisure. 
For as, on the one Side, I would not press you in time ; so, 
on the other, I would have Time fully to weigh them. 

As to M"". Jortin^s Performance, ^^ or rather his Scheme, I 
love the Gentleman, & think it savour'd rather of a Desire, 
than Power of Critic; or if it had the latter Quality, it 
was conducted in too dry & jejune a Method to heighten 
Expectation, or, indeed, subsist. The Serpit humi tutus 
was too prevalent a Rule with him. He had been alarm'd 
at some of Markland's bold Emendations ; so y* to decline 
splitting on the same Rock, he grows over fearfull of launch- 
ing out ; & by being too dubious of Every thing he advances, 
teaches his Readers to pass over his Conjectures as of no 
Weight. No man cares to believe w*^. Distrust in common 
Points : however we may strain Opinion in a Matter of 
more Faith & Sanctity. Sed haec obiter et inter nos. I am 

Dearest Sir, 
y. most oblig'd & affection*®. 
Wyan's Court Friend & humble Serv*. 

30 May. 1734. Lew: Theobald 

25 MS. is torn. 

^ Remarks on Spenser^s Poems and on Milton's Paradise Lost, 1734. 



330 APPENDIX C 

My Dear Friend 

Since the Favour of your last I have been making a short 
Tour into my own County, Kent ; & am now to acknowledge 
the Rec* of your Criticism on 13 disputable passages in 
Shakespeare & y"" list of omitted Emendations : for both 
w''^ I desire to return my thanks. In the postscript of 
yours of June y^ 2°^ you say, you shall order a person to 
bring the Four guineas to my House & leave them there. 
I mention this only to let you know, no such person has 
been near us, so that perhaps, your orders are either mis- 
taken or neglected. Litterary News are at present quite 
dead. You say, you are desirous of seeing my reply to the 
Grubstreet. Our Controversy stands thus. He has at- 
tacked me twice; about tlie 6/x/xa e^earpatx/jievov & the 
Votive Table as I call'd it. I have entered my Defence 
to Both, in separate Letters. I will either procure you the 
4 journals, if you so desire : or if that is not to be done, 
transcribe & send them to you. For the present I'll beg 
to trouble you with two Conjectural Emendations. One 
on Shakespeare, the other on Aeschylus in w^^ your opinion 
will decide, 

Dearest Sir 
y"" most obliged & affectionate 
Wyan's Court humble Servant 

11 July 1734. L: Theobald 

In the 13*^ Stanza of the Venus & Adonis, the poet says, 
— The Goddess is equally enamour'd, whether the youth 
looks sullen or pleas'd; whether he blushes, or looks pale; 
& then subjoins, 

''Being Red, she loves him best : & being white, 
''Her Breast is better' d with a more deUght." 

But how is her Breast better'd ? Sure, this is an odd phrase, 
if it means she is made still happier. Have the Editors 



APPENDIX C 331 

blunder'd this out, from best occurring in the preceding Hne? 
Or is it a poor jingle design'd, betwixt best & better'df To 
me, the Sense seems to be *'If she sees him blush, she loves 
him to the height ; & when she sees his fair cheek, her heart 
is still more captivated with his beauty." I suppose our 
Author, wrote : 

"Her Breast is fettered with a more delight." 

An ''f " curtailed below the line in the M.S.S., might easily 
be mistaken for a ''b" : & there is no metaphor more classical 
you know, than the Chains or Fetters of Love. 

Tum Pater aeterno fatur devinctus amore. Virg. AEn. 8 

in gremium qui seape tuum se 

Rejicit aeterno devinctus volnere Amoris 

Luc. Lib. I. 

hunc vincula Amicitiae 

Rumpere et in summa pietatem evertere fundo. 

Id. Lib. III. 
Ipse ego praeda recens factum modo volnus habebo 
Et nova captiva vincula mente feram 

(Ovid Amor :) 

anima, quales neque candidiores, 

Terra tulit, neque queis me sit devinctior alter 

Horat Sermo I. 
Foelices ter & amplius 
Quos inrupta tenet copula; Id. Od li. I ; 13. 

Telephum, quem tu petis, occupavit 
Non tuae sortis, juvenem puella, 
Dives & lasciva, tenetque gratia 

Compede vinctum Id Od IV. 11. 

etc etc etc Instances from English poetry would be number- 
less. AEschyl. in Prometheo. 



332 APPENDIX C 

V®. 134. KTVTTov 5' 'Axd) xctXu/Sos dirj^ev avrpoiv eK 5' €7rXr7^€ 
fjLOV Tav BeixepCiTTiv aldd), Xvdrjv 5' 'AIIEAIAOS 6x^ TrrepoiTc^ 
The sea-nymphs here come to Promethus. They tell him, 
"The Echo of an iron sound pierc'd to their grotto's, call'd 
the colour from their cheeks, & they have rushed BARE- 
FOOT in their winged chariot." The elder scholiast 
hints y* bLirediKos here is, as in Hesiod TelToves af coo-rot eKiov. 
People come to the relief of a neighbour, without standing 
on being compleatly dressed. And the second scholiast 
explains it, that they were too zealous to be able to slip 
on their shoes. As I am venturing to give this passage a 
Turn, neither countenanced by the Text, nor the (Commen- 
tators, I ought previously to give my Reasons. The 
learned Stanley intimates very justly, that some think 
the water nymphs always are without Shoes or Sandals; 
& that therefore Thetis has the epithet of silver-footed given 
her by Homer. So Philostratus, in his 21^* Epistle, says 
y* Venus emerged from the sea barefoot. If the sea-nymphs 
then were always barefooted, to say, they came ciTreStXot 
would be idle & trivial. And besides, if we consider Cir- 
cumstances, Haste had no occasion to make these nymphs 
leave their Shoes behind them. Tho' their passage is quick, 
yet their setting out was not so precipitate. They stayed 
to ask [leave?] of their Father Ocean, & had much ado 
to obtaine his Consent Trarpcbas . . . ^^ irapeLTrovaa <ppkvas. 
The Context, therefore, would seem to me natural thus. 
"The sound of the hammering pierc'd so fearfully to our 
Grotto's, that it called all the colour from my cheeks, & I 
hasten'd trembling etc. And a very slight literal alter- 
ation of the Text will reconcile it to this Sense : if, instead 
of inrediXos, we may only read Xvdrjv 5' TrOAEIAOS etc. I 
don't find, indeed, y* the Lexicons acknowledge the word, 
but Hesychius has one Synonomous & similarly compounded 
» MS. is torn. 



APPENDIX C 333 

vwoderjs evderis, KaraSeris, eTrt^ojSos — In the Hecuba of Eurip- 
edes, when Polyxena comes out to her, upon hearing her 
violent transports of grief, she says something resembUng 
this sentiment of Aeschylus; 

otKCt3P fx' u3(tt' opviv 9AMBEI rq? 5' e^eTrra^as. 



My dear Friend, 

I have been so perpetually hurried, for this Month past 
in L**. Orrery's Affairs, y* I cannot say I have had a Leisure 
hour to myself or I should much sooner have reply' d to 
the Favour of y^ Last. I hope, you have quite got rid of 
y® uneasie cold with all its Concomitants ; tho' we have had 
a Season too unfavourable easily to throw off the Attacks 
of any Disorder. Your Friends from Cambridge have 
remitted y® 4 Guins. pursuant to your Order, for w*'^. please 
to receive my Thanks. The 2 Grubstreets w""^. you wanted 
are not to be come at with the PubUshers. I shall therefore 
with great pleasure transcribe them, as I am oblig'd to keep 
a copy of them by me. You here receive my first letter, 
& the next Post or the Post after that shall bring you the 
Sequel. 2 8 . . . The next Post my dear Friend, shall bring 
you M^ Bavius's Cavil to this Letter : & after That, you 
shall be visited with my Refutation of the Anonymous 
Attack on my Emendation of Platonius & what M"". 
Bavius thought fit to retort to y*. 

I am Dear S^ Y^ most affectionate & oblig'd 
humble serv*. 
Wyan's Court, Lew : Theobald. 

27 Aug. 1734. 

*' I have omitted the copy of this letter communicated to the Grub' 
street Journal, No. 232, June 6, 1734. 



334 APPENDIX C 

My Dear Friend 

I now transmit to you M'" Bavius's Replication or Cavil 2* 
(quocunque nomine) subjoined to my letter w^^ I last 
troubled you with : & shall only at present confess myself, 
Dear Sir your most oblig'd & affectionate 

humble Servant 
Wyans Court Lew. Theobald. 

3d Sepf 1734 



[To Sir Hans Shane] 
30 Sir 

The encouragement you were so good to shew me in the 
Case of Shakespeare makes me humbly hope I shall have 
y® Honour of y'' Name to the Work I have now under the 
Press, a Translation of AEschylus's Tragedies, with Notes 
Critical and Philological : & an History of the Greek Stage 
in all its Branches, in a Dissertation to be prefix' d. The 
Work will be 2 thick Volumes in 4*° on the best Royal Paper, 
& fine Copper Plates to each Play, the Subscription 2 Guineas. 

I am advis'd by some Friends to give the Greek Text on 
the Opposite Page ; because it may in many Cases be cor- 
rected with Certainty : as well as that the Metre of the 
Chorus's greatly wants adjusting, a Task w^^ even the 
Learned Stanley took no considerable Pains about. I 
mention this at pres*. Sir, only to let you know that by the 
kindness of D"" Conyers Middleton I have a Collation of a 
Mss. of this Poet from the Laurentian Library at Florence ; 
w*'*'. Mss. was made for the use of Franciscus Philadelphus, 

2' I have omitted this, since it can be found in same issue of the 
Grub-street Journal mentioned on the preceding page. 
»» British Museum, Sloane MSS. 4053, ff. 275-276. 



APPENDIX C 335 

a little before the Time of Printing ; & in the Margin the 
Learned Salvini has added here and there his Conjectures. 
I am transcribing the various Readings into my Stanley; 
& could I know ^^ . . . pt of this Collation would be ac- 
ceptable to S'". Hans . . . w*^ great pleasure make it at 
y® same time for y'^ Service. I had an ambition of men- 
tioning this on Thursday was Sennight to you at S^ Robert 
Walpole's; but as I never had the Honour of approaching 
you, I was fearfull of being too importunate. The Honour 
of yo'" Commands will very much oblige Him, who is with 
true Respect & Veneration 

Sir 

Your most obedient 
Wyan's Court in humble serv*. 

Great Russell Steet Lew. Theobald. 

21 Sept^ 1734. 



My dear Friend 

The Favour of yours is arriv'd, & in Acknowledgment 
I give you now the only Line y* I have attempted to write 
above these two Months. Man has certainly neither Reason, 
nor Priveledge, to complain ag*. Nature, & my Constitu- 
tion in particular has been so kindly, that I have not a 
Shadow for Quarrel. Whether Woodward's bihose Salts 
are become predominant, & playing their Tricks in Me, I 
can't say ; but I have been so attack'd, as to think strong 
Texture, good Stamina &c very brittle Defences : & it 
shall never be an Axiom w*^ Me, that a Middle-aged Man 
has liv'd but half his Days. I was seiz'd at once w*^ Some- 
thing Uke a Cold so severe y* I was glad for my own Sake 

31 MS. is torn. 



336 APPENDIX C 

as well as the Family's to creep out of y® Way. A few days 
settled it in the fore part of my Head so intensely, that I 
was almost afraid for my Eyes. This Ferment has been 
succeeded by what I think They call a Feaver on the Spirits, 
w*'^ has led me a strange Dance ; for tho' I have too much 
Flegm to give Way to Whimsey, & have had no rub in 
Fortune to induce me to succumb (as some people you know 
would chuse to say;) to Oppression, yet I assure you it 
has been out of my Power not to feel myself a damn'd, 
insipid Animal. But too much of This, as Hamlet says, 
— My Head is yet but weak, & my Hand not much firmer. 
Excuse me a few Posts, & I hope to convince you that my 
Intentions are no more alter'd, than that Zeal with w'^^. 
I shall ever be proud to approve Myself 

Dear Sir 

Your most affect® & 
Wyan's Court.' oblig'd humble Serv^ 

7. Nov. 1734 Lew: Theobald. 



Dear Sir 

I have received the pleasure of yours, but find I am to 
lose That expected one of seeing You this Spring; the 
hope of w*'^. has for a long while suspended my troubling 
you with any Letters. I had sooner reply'd to yo'" Last, 
but was then mak^. a short Tour into Kent when it arriv'd. 
D^ Stukely I have met twice at M^ Watts,^^ & once at S^ 
Robert Walpole's. I will wait on Mr. Whiston,^^ who,-! 

'2 One of Theobald's printers. 

33 William Whiston (1667-1752), an unorthodox divine and math- 
ematician, was the author of A New Theory of the Earth, 1696, which 
enjoyed a better reputation than its merits justified. His best work 
is a translation of Josephus, 1737, referred to here. 



APPENDIX C 337 

hear has call'd at my House, will subscribe Myself to his 
Josephus, & do him w* Service I can in recomending it. 
The State of Utterary Matters is very dull at present, & 
under manifest Discouragement. I don't know whether 
you have heard what pains I am taking to carry thro' a 
Bill for the Encouragem*. of Learning, & securing of Property 
in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro' unless my Appli- 
cation is cut short by an abrupt Rising of y® Houses. But 
in a few Posts I shall be able to ascertain my Success in it to 
You. Would you believe that I have been saluted in the 
Epistolary Way by a Professor at Zurich? But I over- 
shoot modesty even in the mention of it. Therefore to 
pass to another Subject, Millar ,2^ as you say, imitates 
Moliere full as badly as he translates him. I will look out 
your Letter, mentioning the 2 or 3 books to be procured by 
Vaillant, & will then call upon him about them. I am 

Dear Sir 
Wyan's Court Y^^ most affectionately 

26 Apr. 1735. Lew. Theobald. 



^^ I am to acknowledge the Favour of Two of yours, but 
y*. [I] should have done much earlier, but y* ever since the 
Rising of Parliament my L^. Orrery has engross'd me night 
& day. His Lordship's Affairs have now carried him into 
Ireland, so I hope for a little Time to be a Man more at 
my own Dispose. I need not tell you that it was impossible 

^ James Miller (1706-1744) left the church to write for the stage. 
Some of his plays had considerable success, the plots generally being 
taken from the French, especially Moliere, The play alluded to 
above was The Man of Taste, produced March, 1735. 

36 The manuscript of this letter is in a very bad condition as the 
frequent lacunae show. 



338 APPENDIX C 

to get our Act (for the Propriety of Copies) thro' the Lords 
this Season ; but I am so hardned a Wrestler, as not to give 
over for a single Fall; & therefore design to try t'other 
Bout w*^. them next Session. The Roberts (an Actor) 
whom you mention to have wrote some Remarks on Shakes- 
peare, never wrote any Thing that I know of, but some 
Remarks on M'". Pope's Preface,^' as a pretended Defence 
of his Fellow-Players. Nor can I yet find out any Epistle 
addressed to M"". Pope, in w^^. You have been drawn into 
a share of abuse. If I can trace any such I will not fail 
to give you full Notice. You desire some Account of my 
Zurich Correspondent. You must know, he had met , 
w*. a trifling Poem of mine abroad, call'd the Cave of Poverty, 
attempted by me near 20 Years ago in Imitation of Shakes- 
peare. Something in it, it seems, happen'd to strike his 
Fancy strongly; & about 2 Years ago he express'd his 
Compliments in a Letter, brought to me by two itinerant 
Abbees, w*'^ put me to the unaccustom'd Task of a Latine 
Conversation. I thought Myself oblig'd to set Pen to 
Paper, in reply to his great Civility; & that Compliance 
I suppose has drawn on the following Letter w*'^ I'll give 
you totidem verbis. 

Viro CI . . . simo, Cel . . . rimoque, 
Ludovico Theobald© 
Anglo 
Jo. Jacobus Bodmer Tigurino — Helvetius.S.D. 

Utor Libertate quam Epistola Humanitatis & egregiae in 
me Voluntatis plena concessisti. Quid enim jucundius, 
quid optabilius in Vita cuiquam accidere potest hominum 
Erudi . . . similium, Consuetudine ? Sed, eheu ! iniquum 

* John Roberts, Answer to Pope's Preface to Shakespeare, by a 
Strolling Player [1730]. 



APPENDIX C 339 

quo pre . . . Quam enim Tu mihi, ut ut nullis Tibi Meritis 
cognito, am . . . Consuetudinemque benevolo largiris, 
eadem ut plene perfrua . . . Montium terrarumque Tractus 
interject!, Oceanus denique interfu . . . negare videntur. 
Literarum equidem beneficio id consequimur, quantum vis 
longissimo terrae tractu dissiti conversari & colloquia 
miscere possimus ; sed dum viatores, quibus Epistolas 
parvasque sarcinas ultro citroque ferendas committimus, 
rarius obveniunt ac diutius per Viam morantur, Studium 
exspectando immuni, et consuetudinis voluptati multum 
derogari accidit. 

Interim consuetudine hac Epistolari fruamur, qua licet 
et Res et Locus fieri patiuntur. Gratulor Tibi egregiam 
istam juvandi liber ales Disciplinas voluntatem, qua in- 
flammatus novam Shakespear I Editionem procurare 
adgressus es. Non equidem me fugit Alexandrum Popium, 
quem tibi Editione Shakespearii praeivisse . . . bis, virum 
ingenio felicissimo, faman nominis longe lateque . . . 
neque poemata ejus miscellanea, quae ad Apinam banc 
plagam usque devenerunt, adulationis hunc rumorem ad- 
cusare videntur. Doctrina tamen, ingenio, atque ceteris 
dotibus animi abund^ Te instructum et ornatum ad Shake- 
spear I Fabulas inlustrandas accedere probe sentio, ex tuo 
de Divae PAUPERTATIS spelunca eximio Poematio, 
quod non stylum vocemque solum Shakespearii exprimit, 
sed ipsummet enthei Poetae Spiritum feliciter audacem 
undequaque Spirat. ContuU enim ad unam alteram ve 
Shakespearii fabulam, quae jam olim ab ipso Editae, nescio 
quo vento secundo in meas delatae sunt Manus. Haec 
ipsa mirum mihi desiderium totum Shakespearium, sed a 
Te recognitum, habendi implantarunt in Animum. Quis 
enim profundos Shakespearii Sensus certius nobis exponere 
queat, quam qui simile sensu a rebus adficiatur? Optime 
porro factum, quod AEschylum Anglice reddere allaborasti, 



340 APPENDIX C 

Poetam, si quid intelligo, res concipiendi verbisque ex- 
primendi, pingendique more Shakespearis perquam similem ; 
ita ut ingenii quadam Agnatione inductum Te ad veterem 
Tragoedum vertendum animum adpulisse mihi persuadeam. 
Quod plerique, qui huic labori manus hactenus admoverunt, 
operam luserint, potissimum factum credo, quia a singulari 
illo sensu, quo poetam Graecum res adfecerunt, nimium 
fuerunt remoti alieni. Sed et linguam tibi vernaculam 
prae ceteris, quod sciam, ad reddendum AEschyli ser- 
monem . . . am esse, certis me criteriis cognovisse puto. 
Quod si igitur summum mihi oblec . . . mentum, . . . dissimum 
ex eorum genere, quibus vitae taedia solari soleo, non . . . 

Th de optime, quam ocyssime exemplar Shakes- 

spearii tu . . . curabis. Vicissim plura ad Te mittam 
exempla Del Parang . . . quem nunc integrum accipies : 
nee non mittam, si non displice . . . intellexero, Apolo- 
giam Oedipodis Sophoclei, simulque Tractat . . . quo- 
rundam doctorum Italorum, varii ad Graecanicae Scena 
. . . toriam facientis Argumenti, Tibi forte alicui usui futuros. 
. . . cumque autem librorum vel literarum aliquid ad Me 
perferri . . . Amstelodanum, id mea sub inscriptione ad 
Viduam Van Kem . . . Et Bartholomeum van den Sand- 
heuvel transfretari cura, q . . . porro mittendum lubenter 
suscipient. Ego caeterum nihil o . . . quae ad nominis 
tui celebritatem, cum in Germania, tum et in . . . mul- 
toque rerum virorumque usu mihi cognita Italia, augen- 
dam formandamque pertinere videbantur. Eo enim erga 
Te animo sum, quo erga virum honestissimum eruditissi- 
mumque esse ... est. Vale. Tiguri Helvetiorum add. 
14 Aprilis St. N. MDCCXXXIV. 

Ne erres in Literarum Inscriptione, en Tibi eam gallice 
A Jean Jacques Bodmer, Professeur en Histoire et Politique, 
a Zuric dans la Suisse ; recommande a Messieurs La Veuve 
van Kemena et Barthelmy van den Sandheuvel a Amsterdam. 



APPENDIX C 341 

Now you have it, Dear Sir, & now let me have your Advice. 
The Gentleman's Character, I am a Stranger to : but I 
have no Reason to suspect any Thing but his Judgment, 
in expressing Himself w*^ such unmerited Zeal & Com- 
plaisance. Shall I send over a Sett of Shakespeare, & 
trust to the Returns? I mean, of Literature; not of Com- 
pliments. I shall be determin'd by your Opinion, as I 
shall be proud to be in all Cases, as long as I can subscribe 
myself 

y"". most affect®. & oblig'd humble Serv*. 
Wyan's Court Lew: Theobald. 

24^1^ June 17 . . . [1735] 



Dear Sir, 

I have delay'd some few Posts, since my Return from 
Kent, (an Expedition y* I generally take ab* y®. Time of 
the Year) to reply to the Favour of Your Last of y® 17*^ 
Sepf., because I was desirous, if possible, to get you the 
pirated 2^ Volume of M^ Pope's Poems in 12°'*'. But the 
Trade, I find, will not own y^ it is to be procured by Them, 
or y* They dare to meddle w*^ it if it was. I have been 
several Times at M^ Vaillant's ab* y® odd Vol. of Mons'" 
le Clerc ; & he has promised y* the Warehouse Keeper shall 
look into the Wast ; & if there be a Volume without break- 
ing a Sett y* the Mistake shall be rectified. I will call on 
him again next Week, to keep up his Memory in this affair. 
— You desire some little Account of Literary News ; but, 
I am afraid, I am too much a Recluse to be able to furnish 
much. Milton's Paradise Lost, no Doubt you have heard, 
we are going to have in Greek hexameters ; if the first 
Specimen meets w*^ sufficient Encouragement. The Be- 



342 APPENDIX C 

ginning of next Month will be publish 'd an English version 
of Anacreon & Sappho, with the Greek Text on the opposite 
Page, by one M"". Addison. To say the Truth, I believe 
him to be a natural Son of his great Namesake ; & I think 
verily, I have formerly seen him at y* Gentleman's Apart- 
ments. Another Embryo, y* I can inform you of, & w''^ 
will make its Appearance in Febry next, is a new version of 
the 2^. AEneis of Virgil, w*^ Notes Philological & Critical : 
by a Relation & Namesake of Mine, a Doctor of Physick, 
at a J Guinea Subscription. He prints it on fine Royal 
Paper, in 4*°; gives us a Bust of Virgil from Augustini's 
Gemms, & as he divides the Book into 4 Canto's, we shall 
have 4 more Copper Plates alluding to the Subject of each 
Division. — Perhaps, You may not have heard, y* we have 
been complimented on Shakespeare by a Journal from 
Barbadoes. If you have not seen it, I will transmit one 
to M'". Gyles, together w*^. a Trifle of mine w*'^. I have 
lately printed, The Fatal Secret, a Tragedy; & w*'^ I 
have dedicated to S^ Robert Walpole, who shews me all 
Kindnesses, but the most important One; I mean the 
Setting me in some comfortable Certainty. 

As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means 
dropt, only deferr'd to Spring, when y* & AEschylus, I 
hope in God, shall Both appear; & an Act be obtain'd to 
preserve the Property of Them, together with That of more 
valuable Productions. — And, as, I think, I mention'd to 
You, that I was prepar'd to amend & account for above 
20 Thousand passages in Hesychius, I am labouring hard 
to draw out those Stores, that they may not be quite lost 
in case I Myself should be snatch'd away. It is very odd, 
what a great Number of Places I shall be able to set right, 
y* are corrupt, Both by Explanations being divided from 
their Themes ; & by Themes, as mistakenly sunk, & stand- 
ing as Explanations of what they have, indeed, no Reference 



APPENDIX C 343 

to. I could give you an ample Specimen; but, perhaps, 
you trade very little with y* Author. 

I am, 

My dear Friend 

y"" most affectionate 
Wyan's Court. obhged humble serv*. 

18 Octo'*. 1735. Lew : Theobald. 



Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736. 
Dear Sir, 

I reced yours of the 4*^ Instant, & should have reply'd 
to it the next Post, but that I was willing to get over the 
surprize its Contents gave me. It is now retorted upon 
Me, that You gave Me your Notes with a Generosity I 
could not complain of. I thought on the other hand, I 
had not only confess'd the obligation in private but to the 
World. But why am I told that I had all the Profit of my 
Edition? I am sure, I never dreamt to this day, but that 
the Assistance of my Friends were design'd gratuitous ; & if 
I misunderstood this Point, I should have been set right 
by some Hints before the Publication. I used, you say, 
what Notes, I thought fit ; & the remaining Ones are your 
Property. I own as Editor, I believ'd I had a discretionary 
Power of picking & chusing my Materials ; & I am certain 
during the Affair, you conceded this Liberty to Me : the 
remaining Notes (in an Epistolary Correspondence) being 
your Property, or no, is a piece of Casuistry w^^ I shall not 
dispute upon. Tho' I foresee. They are now to be turn'd 
upon Me, & I am to be in the State of a Country conquered 
by its Auxiliaries, yet tho' my Bread & Reputation de- 
pended upon my Compliance, I would sacrifice both Re- 



344 APPENDIX C 

gards to What you expect from Me, & endeavour at any 
Price to approve Myself Dear Sir, y'". obliged Friend & 
very 

humble Serv*. 

Lew : Theobald. 



Dear Sir, 

I have sent to M. Gyles's all the Letters y*. I could col- 
lect of yours in my Possession ; & digested them near as I 
could, according to their Dates. As you revoke any per- 
mission I may imagine that I have, to use, or publish, any 
more of them ; so I utterly renounce all suppos'd Priviledge ; 
& as I am preparing to throw out 3 supplemental Volumes 
to Shakespeare, on the old Footing; these, I presume, I 
may claim an equal Title of Revoking. The sending these 
Papers has neither been delay'd thro' neglect, nor Reluctance : 
but indeed, for Self & Friends I have been more employed 
than I could have wish'd. 

I am, Sir 

y. very humble servant 
Wyan's Court. Lew : Theobald 

4*^ Sept^ 1736 



37 Tibbald's Word in a letter to me, of 18 Nov^ 1731, 
which I sent him at his desire with Many others — "But 
Dear Sir will you at your leasure hours think over for me 
upon y® contents, Topicks Order &c of this branch of my 
labour. You have a comprehensive Memory, & a happiness 

^ This passage is written on a scrap of paper in Warburton's hand- 
vmting. 



APPENDIX C 345 

of digesting the Matter joined to it, which my head is often 
much embarrassed to perform : let that be the Excuse for 
my inabihty, but How unreasonable is it to expect this 
when it is the only Part in which I shall not be able to be 
just to my friend ; for to confess '. . . assistance will I 
am afraid . . . make me appear too naked. 



[_To the Duke of Newcastle^ 

3^ May it please Your Grace, 

You were so good some few Months ago, to do me the 
great Honour of subscribing to my Edition of Shakespeare's 
Works. The Books, my Lord, are now pubhsh'd ; and 
your Grace's Set waits Your Commands by the Bearer. 
I presume to enclose my Receipt for your Grace's Second 
Subscription Payment. 

Permit me with the most profound Respect & Gratitude, 
to profess myself, 

My Lord, 

Your Grace's most Obedient 

11*^ March. & most humble Servant 

1740. Lew: Theobald. 

IV^. March, 1740 

Reced then of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle three 
Guineas, being his Grace's second Subscription payment in 
full for one set of Shakespeare's Works in Eight Volumes 
with Cuts, publish'd by me 

Lew : Theobald. 

»8 British Museum, Add. MSS. 32, 696, ff. 217, 219. 



346 APPENDIX C 

[To the Duke of Newcastle^ 

^^ May it please your Grace, 

I have had such repeated Indulgence from your Goodness 
upon every Application, that I am once more encouraged 
to address your Grace on an Emergency. The Situation 
of my Affairs upon a Loss & Disappointment, obliging me 
to embrace a Benefit at this late & disadvantageous Season, 
it lays me under a Necessity of throwing Myself on the 
Favour of the Publick, & the kind Assistance of my Friends 
& Well-wishers. If your Grace can be so good to honour 
me with your Presence, & to engage a few of your noble 
Friends in my Favour, it will be of the most important 
Service to me, & fix an Obligation that shall always be ac- 
knowledged with the greatest Humility and Gratitude, by 
My Lord, 

You Grace's most dutifull & 
Wyan's Court in obedient humble Servant 

Great Russell street Lew : Theobald. 

12*^ May 1741 

" British Museum, Add. MSS. 32696, f. 513. 



APPENDIX D 

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THEOBALD'S WORKS 

A Pindaric Ode on the Union of Scotland and England, 1707. 
I have not seen this poem. See Lounsbury, p. 124. 

The Life and Character of Marcus Fortius Cato Uticensis : Col- 
lected from the Best Ancient Greek and Latin Authors; and De- 
signed for the Readers of Cato, a Tragedy. The Second Edition 
with large Additions. London : Printed for Bernard Lintot, Between 
the Two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet. MDCCXIII. 

Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul, Translated from 
the Greek by Mr. Theobald, Author of the life of Cato Uticensis. 
London : Printed for Bernard Lintot at the Cross-Keys between the 
Two Temple-Gates in Fleet-street. MDCCXIII. 

The Mausoleum. A Poem. Sacred to the Memory of Her Late 
Majesty Queen Anne. Written by Mr, Theobald. London : Printed 
for Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan without Temple-bar. 1714. 

Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greek, with Notes. Lon- 
don. Printed for Bernard Lintott at the Cross-Keys between the Two 
Temple-Gates in Fleet-street. 1714. 

Probably not by Theobald. 

A Critical Discourse upon the Iliad of Homer ; written in French 
by Monsieur de la Motte, a Member of the French Academy; and 
translated into English by Mr. Theobald, 1714. 

Professor Lounsbury (p. 132) comments on the scarcity of this 
work. A copy was advertised in a recent catalogue of P. J. and 
A. E. Dobell of London. 



348 APPENDIX D 

Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. 
London : Printed for Bernard Lintott, at the Cross-Keys between the 
two Temple Gates in Fleet-street, 1714. 

Oedipus King of Thebes. A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles, 
with Notes. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for Bernard 
Lintott, at the Cross-Keys between the two Temple Gates in Fleet- 
street, 1715. 

The Clouds. A Comedie. Translated from the Greek of Aris- 
tophanes. By Mr. Theobald : Printed for Jonas Brown at the Black 
Swan without Temple-Bar. MDCCXV. 

^Plutus: or the World's Idol. A Comedie. Translated from the 
Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for 
Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan without Temple-Bar. 1715. 

Monsieur Le Clerc's Observations upon Mr. Addison's Travels 
Through Italy etc. Also Some Account of the United Provinces of 
the Netherlands ; chiefly with regard to their Trade and Riches, and 
a Particular Account of the Bank of Amsterdam. Done from the 
French by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for E. Curll, at the Dial 
and Bible, against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street, 1715. 

A poem written on the recovery of the Duke of Ormond from a dan- 
gerous illness (1715?). 

I have found no trace of this poem but Theobald mentions it 
in his dedication of the Persian Princess, 1715, to the Duchess of 
Ormond. 

The Cave of Poverty. A Poem. Written in Imitation of Shake- 
speare. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for Jonas Brown 
at the Black Swan without Temple-bar, and sold by J. Roberts at the 
Oxford Arms in Warwick-lane. 1715. 

A Complete Key to the last New Farce The What D'ye Call It, 
To Which is prefixed a Hypercritical Preface on the Nature of Bur- 



APPENDIX D 349 

lesque, and the Poet's Design. London : Printed for James Roberts 
at the Oxford Arms in Warwick-lane 1715. 

Ascribed with some justification to Theobald by Pope. 

The Persian Princess, or The Royal Villain, 12mo, 1715, 4to 
"^1717. 



The Perfidious Brother, A Tragedy; As it is Acted at the New 
Theatre in Little Lincoln' s-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Theobald. London: 
Printed and Sold by Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan, without Temple- 
bar. 1715. 

A Translation of the First Book of the Odyssey, with Notes by Mr. 
Theobald, 1716. 

No copy seems to be extant. Pope says it was printed in 1717, 
but Nichols says it appeared in November, 1716. See Lounsbury, 
pp. 132-133. 

The Censor. The Second Edition. London: Printed for Jonas 
Brown, at the Black-Swan without Temple-Bar. 1717. 

Three volumes bound in one. The periodical was a tri- weekly 
and ran from April 11 to June 17, 1715, suspended pubUcation a 
while, and continued from January 1 to May 30, 1717. See Brit. 
Mus. 239. g. 11-13. 

Translations from Ovid's Metamorphoses. [1717?] 
I have discovered no trace of them. See Nichols, Illustrations 
of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708. 

Decius and Paulina, a Masque. London: 1718. 

The Entertainments . . . for the comic-dramatic opera, called 
The Lady's Triumph. London 1718. 

These two trifles were contributed to E. Settle's opera. The 
Lady's Triumph, 1718. 



350 APPENDIX D 

Deems and Paulina, a masque. To which are added the other 
musical entertainments . . . in the opera of Circe. London 1719. 

The entertainments were introduced into Charles D'Avenant's 
Circe, a tragedy, 1677, revived in 1719. 

The Death of Hannibal. 

Never acted or pubhshed. See G. Jacob, Poetical Register, vol. 
1, p. 259. 

The History of the Loves of Antiochu^ and Stratonice; in which 
are interspersed some Accounts relating to Greece and Syria. London, 
1719. 

Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh ; His Life, his Military and Naval 
Exploits, his Preferments and Death; In which are Inserted the 
Private Intrigues between the Count of Gondamore, the Spanish 
Ambassador, and the Lord Salisbury, then Secretary of State. Writ- 
ten by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb 
without Temple-bar. 1719. 

The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre 
in Lincoln' s-inn-fields. Altered from Shakespear, By Mr. Theobald. 
London. 1720. 

The Grove ; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, etc. 
By W. Walsh, Esq., Dr. J. Donne. Mr. Dryden. Mr. Hall of 

Hereford, The Lady E M , Mr. Butler, Author of Hudi- 

bras. Mr. Stepney, Sir John Suckling, Dr. Kennick, And other 
Eminent Hands. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb with- 
out Temple-Bar. 1721. 

Theobald's name as collector appears on the second edition, 
1732. The miscellany contains his translation of Hero and Leander 
and a few short poems. 

The Gentleman's Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all 
Parts of Life. 12mo. 1722. 

I have found no trace or mention of this trifle except in The- 



APPENDIX D 351 

ophilus Gibber's Lives of the Poets, vol. 5, p. 287, where it is attrib- 
uted to Theobald. 

Harlequin Sorcerer with the Loves of Pluto and Proserpina, 1725. 

The Rape of Proserpine, 1725. 

Apollo and Daphne, or the Burgo-M aster Trick' d, 1726. 

SHAKESPEARE restored: or, A SPECIMEN of the Many 
ERRORS as well committed, as Unamended, by Mr. POPE In his 
Late EDITION of this POET. Designed Not only to correct the 
said EDITION, but to restore the True READING of SHAKE- 
SPEARE in all the Editions ever yet published. By Mr. THEOBALD. 

. . . Laniatum Gorpore toto 

Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeUter Ora, 

Ora, manusque ambas, . . . 

Virg. 

LONDON: Printed for R. FRANGKLIN under Tom's, J. WOOD- 
MAN and D. LYON under WiWs, Covent-Garden, and G. DAVIS 
in Hatton-Garden. MDGGXXVI. 

Second Edition, 1740. 

London Journal. 

A letter of Theobald communicated to the issue of September 3, 
1726. 

MisVs Journal. 

Letters communicated to the issues of March 16, April 27, 
June 22, 1728. 

Daily Journal. 

Letters communicated to the issues of November 26, 1728, 
April 17, 1729. 



352 APPENDIX D 

The Rival Modes: a Comedy. London: 1727 [James Moore 
Smythe]. 

Theobald wrote the prologue. 

Double Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers. A Play. As it is 
Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane. Written Originally 
by W. Shakespeare ; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage By 
Mr. Theobald, the Author of Shakespeare Restored. London: 
Printed by J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lin- 
coln's Inn Fields, MDCCXXVIII. 

Authorship uncertain. 

Second Edition, 1728. 
Third Edition, 1767. 

An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation; being a 
Supplement to the Art of Sinking in Poetry. 

Contributed anonymously to Mist's Journal, March 30, 1728, 
and attributed by Pope to Theobald. There is some reason for 
considering the ascription correct. 

The Works of Hesiod Translated from the Greek. By Mr. Cooke. 
London: MDCCXXVIII. 

Theobald contributed a few notes. 

The Posthumous Works of William Wycherly in Prose and Verse. 
Published from his Original Manuscripts by Mr. Theobald. To 
Which are Prefixed some Memoirs of Mr. Wycherly' s Life by Major 
Peck. 2 pt. London 1728. 

Perseus and Andromeda, 1730. 

^ Orestes : A Dramatic Opera. As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal 
in Lincoln' s-Inn Fields. Written by Mr. Theobald. London: 
Printed for John Watts at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court, near 
Lincoln's Inn Fields. MDCCXXXI. 



APPENDIX D 353 

Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern. 
London: MDCCXXXI. 2 vols. ed. J. Jortin. 

Theobald contributed three papers to the first volume of this 
periodical. 

An Epistle humbly addressed to the Right Honorable John, Earl of 
Orrery. 1732. 

A Miscellany on Taste. By Mr. Pope, etc, London : 1732. 
Ascribed without reason to Theobald. Possibly it was com- 
piled by Concanen. 

The Works of Shakespeare : in seven volumes. Collated with the 
Oldest Copies, and Corrected; with Notes explanatory and Critical: 
By Mr. Theobald. 

I, Decu^, i, nostrum: melioribu^ utere Fatis. Virg. 
London: Printed for A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, J. Tonson, F. 
Clay, W. Feales, and R. Wellington. MDCCXXXIII. 

The edition did not appear until January, 1734. 

The Works of Shakespeare: in eight volumes. With notes, ex- 
planatory, and critical, by Mr. Theobald. The Second Edition. 
H. Lintott, C. Hitch, J. and R. Tonson etc. London 1740. 12°. 

The Works of Shakespeare . . . With Notes by Mr. Theobald. 
The Third edition. 8 vol. J. & P. Knapton: London, 1752. 12°. 

Another edition, 1757. 8 vols. 8°. 

Another edition, 1762. 8 vols. 8°. 

Another edition. Printed verbatim from the octavo edition 1767. 
8 vols. 12°. 

Another edition, 1772. 12 vols. 12°. 

Another edition, Printed verbatim, from the octavo edition. 1773. 
8 vols. 12°. 



354 APPENDIX D 

Another edition [c. 1777]. 12 vols. 8°. 

Macbeth . . . Edited hxj L. Theobald. Dublin, 1739. 

Merry Wives of Windsor. . . . With notes explanatory and critical 
by Mr. Theobald. Dvhlin. 1739. 

As you like it. A Comedy ; as it is acted at the Theatre-Royal in 
Aungier-Street, Dvhlin. . . . Collated with the oldest copies and 
corrected, by Mr. Theobald. Dublin. 1741. 

The Tempest. . . . with notes by L. Theobald. London. 1755. 

Measure for Measure . . . Edited by L. Theobald [Edinburgh 
& London] 1778. 

Much ado about nothing . . . edited by L. Theobald [Edinburgh] 

1778. 

Much ado about nothing . . . As it is acted at the Theatres Royal 
in Drury-Lane and Covent-Garden . . . London. 1778. 

Grub-street Journal. 

Theobald made contributions to issues of June 6, June 20, 1734. 

■ The Vocal Parts of an Entertainment, call'd Merlin ; or The Devil 
of Stone Henge . . . With a Preface containing a succinct Account 
of Stone-Henge and Merlin. Written by Mr. Theobald. . . .London: 
1734. 

iThe Fatal Secret. A Tragedy. As it is Acted at the Theatre- 
Royal, in Covent-Garden. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed 
for J. Watts ; And Sold by W. Feales at Rowe's Head, the Corner of 
Essex-Street in the Strand. MDCCXXXV. 

An adaptation of Webster's The Duchess of Malfi. 



APPENDIX D 355 

Orpheus and Eurydice, An Opera As it is Performed at the Theatre 
Royal In Covent Garden. Set to Musick by Mr. John Frederick 
Lampe. London 1739. 

The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, 
Betwixt Signor Capaccio, a Director from the Canary Islands ; and 
Signora Dorinna, a Virtuosa. London 1741. 

The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher 
In ten Volumes. Collated with all the former Editions, and Cor- 
rected. With Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. 
Theobald, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London : 
Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper, in the Strand. 1750. 

Theobald edited the entire first volume, the second to page 
233, and the third to page 69. 

The Works of Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with 
All former Editions and Corrected; with Notes Critical and Ex- 
planatory. By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in 
Oxford. London. MDCCLVI. 

Whalley used Theobald's copies with marginal corrections, 
and adopted some. 

Ai(Txv\ov IlpofiriOevs Aea-jxoTrjs, Aeschyli Prometheus Vinctus ad 
fidem manuscriporum emendavit. Notas et Glossarium adjecit. 
Carolus Jacobus Bloomfield. Edition Tertia. 1819. 

' Bloomfield made use of some of Theobald's notes written on the 
margin of the latter's copy of Stanley's edition. 



INDEX 



Addison, Joseph, 6, 13, 17, 109, 

110, 170, 235, 236, 342 
Aeneid, 40, 57, 342 
Aeschylus, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 20, 

67, 117, 130, 134, 151, 152, 

196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 

325, 330, 331, 332, 334, 339, 

340, 342 
Ajax, 6, 7, 130 
Anacreon, 199, 342 
An Author to Let, 135 
AndroniciLS, 186 
Answer to the many Plain and 

Notorious Lyes, 28 
Antigone, 6, 7 
Aniiochu^, 11 
Antiquities and History of Ireland, 

195 
Apollo and Daphne, 26 
Arbuthnot, John, 57, 130 
Argyle, Duke of, 9 
Ariosto, 243 
Aristophanes, 4, 8, 10, 12, 34, 

151, 199, 276 
Aristotle, 68, 268 
Amobius, 301, 306 
As You Like It, 65, 188, 189, 262 
Athenaeus, 82, 152, 199 
Atterbury, Francis, 53 



Bartholomew Fair, 186 

Bathos, 29, 108, 111, 113, 114, 275 

Battle of the Books, 254 

Beaumont and Fletcher, 95, 175, 
203, 212, 217, 218, 225, 245 

Bentley, Richard, 17, 19, 20 32- 
43, 47, 51-53, 55, 57-60, 66, 
69-71, 78, 80-82, 84-93, 98, 
99, 138, 141-146, 154, 168, 
169, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 
180, 182, 183, 190, 191, 193, 
195, 209, 219, 221, 235, 236, 
253, 256, 257, 269, 278, 299, 
305, 306, 307, 324 

Bentley, Thomas, 193, 220 

Betterton, Thomas, 102 

Bibliotheca, 55, 254, 255 

Biographica Dramatica, 6 

Birch, Thomas, 168, 212, 236, 
237, 243 

Bishop, Harley, 220, 285 

Blackmore, Richard, 109 

Bodmer, Johann Jacob, 14, 338, 
340 

Boiardo, 243 

Bolingbroke, Viscount, 155 

Broome, William, 64, 109, 138, 
149 

Brown, Jonas, 115 



Bacon, Francis, 237 
Baker, Thomas, 193 
Barnes, Joshua, 34, 46 



Caesar, 39, 67 
Callimachus, 34 
Camden, William, 175 



358 



INDEX 



Canons of Criticism, 57 

Cardenna, 104 

Casaubon, 32, 34 

Cato, 2 

Cave of Poverty, 14, 16, 67, 130 

Caxton, William, 175 

Censor, 3, 4, 11, 17, 49, 67, 68, 
70, 116, 133 

Cervantes, 104 

Chandos, Duke of, 149, 295, 298 

Chapman, George, 175 

Charteris, Francis, 272 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, 95, 174, 175, 
177, 218, 231, 234, 238, 239, 
242 

Cheats of Scapin, 23 

Cheselden, WilHam, 316, 320 

Church, Ralph, 222, 241-244 

Churchill, Charles, 16 

Gibber, CoUey, 30, 193 

Gibber, Theophilus, 193 

Cleland, WilHam, 130 

Clouds, 2, 9, 80 

Comedy of Errors, 176, 188 

Complete Key to the What D^ye 
Call It, 67 

Goncanen, Matthew, 97, 100, 101, 
111, 135, 136, 211, 275, 310, 
312 

Goncanen Club, 101, 136, 274 

Cooke, Thomas, 101, 111, 118, 
123, 124, 128, 135, 136 

Coriolanus, 64, 107 

Cosmography, 178, 236 

Coxeter, Thomas, 220, 247, 248, 
286 

Critical, Historical, and Explana- 
tory Notes, 230 

Critical Observations on Shake- 
speare, 228 

Cupid and Bacchus, 23 



Cythereia, 110 

Dacier, Anne L., 10 

Daily Journal, 122, 134, 149, 

321 
Daniel, Samuel, 175 
Davies, John, 193 
Death of Hannibal, 23 
Dekker, Thomas, 175 
Delawar, Lady, 147, 151, 156- 

158, 266, 274 

Dell, , 248 

Dennis, John, 11, 17, 101, 110, 

111, 116, 117, 136 
De Quincy, Thomas, 35 
Dialogues of the Dead, 257 
Discovery of a London Monster, 175 
Dissertation upon the Epistles of 

Phalaris, 33, 35, 37, 51, 69, 70, 

99, 178, 180, 219 
Dodington, George, 102 
Dodsley, Richard, 245, 247 
Don Quixote, 102, 141 
Double Falshood, 29, 102, 106, 

108, 112, 130, 131, 180, 187 
Downes, John, 102 
Drayton, Michael, 243 
Dryden, John, 11, 84, 127, 263 
Duchess of Malfi, 152 
Dugdale, Sir WiUiam, 175 
Dunciad, 4, 6-9, 12, 16, 29, 101, 

103, 108, 111, 112, 114-118, 

120, 124, 126-128, 131-136, 

141, 145-148, 179, 180, 190, 

198, 201, 203, 250, 254, 255, 

259, 275 
Duncombe, William, 119 
Durgen, 117, 118 

Eledra, 3, 6, 7 
Ellis, Rev., 2 



INDEX 



359 



Ejyistle, 155 

Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, 141 

Epistle to Mill, 33, 36, 39, 71, 

219, 269 
Epistola Critica (Markland's) 47, 

93 
Erasmus, 31, 34 
Essay on Man, 141 
Essay on the Art of a PoeVs Sinking 

in Reputation, 113, 128 
Essay upon Mr. Pope's Judgment, 

148 
Euripides, 7, 43, 68, 333 
Eustathius, 43, 149, 152, 199 
Every Man in his Humour, 185 

Faerie Queene, 218, 237, 241, 242 
Fairfax, Edward, 242, 243 
Famous Voyage, 311 
Farmer, Richard, 104, 176, 251 
-Fatal Secret, 152 
Fenton, Elijah, 218, 235, 236 
Fielding, Henry, 9, 10, 25, 146, 

193 
Fletcher, John, 102, 103, 106 
Folkes, Martin, 220, 285 
Ford, John, 175 
Fragment of a Satire, 110, 114, 

139, 145 
Franklin, Thomas, 12 
Friend, John, 121, 193, 259 

Gay, John, 17, 19, 118 

Garth, Samuel, 11 

Geoffrey of Monmouth, 239, 242, 

243 
Gifford, William, 104, 240, 248 
Gildon, Charles, 109, 110, 176, 218 
Glanville, John, 2, 9 
Goldsmith, Oliver, 18 
Gottschedd, Johann, 14 



Grafton, Duke of, 147 

Grey, Zachary, 230, 233, 234, 250 

Grove, 3, 7, 11, 69 

Grub-street Journal, 4, 9, 103, 136, 

140, 142, 159, 194, 200, 275, 

330, 333 

Hakluyt, Richard, 175 

Hamlet, 64, 65, 67, 73, 79, 90, 91, 

93, 94, 112, 123, 188, 288, 313, 

315 
Hamner, Thomas, 227 
Happy Captive, 29 
Hardinge, Nicholas, 193, 221 
Hare, Francis, 40, 42, 48 
Harlequin-Horace, 137 
Harlequin Sorcerer, 26 
Haywood, EUza, 115, 135 • 
Heath, Benjamin, 231, 250 
Hecatomuthi, 281 
Henry IV, 282 
Henry V, 185 
Henry VI, 186, 187 
Henry VIII, 185 
Hercules Fur ens, 112 
Hero and Leander, 15, 69 
Hesiod, 15, 124, 125, 198, 332 
Hesychius, 199, 202, 203, 308, 

309, 332, 342 
Hejrwood, Thomas, 175 
Hill, John, 28, 29 
Historica Danica, 123 
History of Gardenia, 104, 106 
History of the Works of the Learned, 

236 
Holinshed, Raphael, 175, 189 
Homer, 5, 8, 15, 19, 149, 175, 332 
Horace, 5, 11, 37, 39, 41-44, 52, 

54-56, 58, 72, 75, 82, 84, 87, 

89, 90, 91, 93, 143, 145, 173, 

221, 256, 257, 308 



360 



INDEX 



Hudihras, 233, 234 

Hughes, John, 6, 218, 237, 243, 

244 
Hume, Patrick, 234, 236 
Humorous Lieutenant, 95 
Hugo, Victor, 68 
Hurd, Richard, 146 

Iliad, 9, 19 
II Penscroso, 169 

Inquiry into the Learning of 
Shakespeare, 228 

Jack Drum's Entertainment, 184 

Jackson, , 6, 7 

Jacob, Giles, 3, 6, 11, 115, 119 
Johnson, Samuel, 12, 51, 134, 146, 

159, 169, 182, 188, 189, 226, 

227, 244, 249, 250, 252 
Jonson, Ben, 169, 175, 186, 212, 

225, 239, 242, 245-247, 310 
Jortin, John, 53, 141, 146, 198, 

199, 221, 235, 236, 237, 243, 

244, 329 
Judgment of Apollo, 119 
Junius Brutus, 119 
Ju^in Martyr, 39, 48, 58, 220 

Kennick, Dr., 11, 20 
Kenrick, William, 188, 250 
King John, 87, 174 
King, WilUam, 52, 256, 257 
Kyd, Thomas, 175 

Lady's Triumph, 26 
U Allegro, 169 
Langbaine, Gerard, 189 
Lear, 90, 151 
Le Clerc, Jean, 13, 57 
Letter Concerning a New Edition, 
237 



Life and Character of Cato, 2, 30 
Life and Remarks of Zoilus, 18, 19 
Lintot, Bernard, 2, 5, 6-8, 201, 

257 
LoUius, 23 
Locrine, 266 

Lodge, Thomas, 175, 189 
London Daily Post, 212, 321 
London Journal, 97, 100 
Love's Labor's Lost, 280, 310 
Loves of Mars and Venus, 23 
Lycidas, 195, 327 
Lydgate, John, 175, 243 

Macbeth, 64, 76, 151, 177, 185, 

229, 309 
MaUet, David, 145, 170 
Malone, Edmond, 104 
Man of Taste, 337 
Markland, Jeremiah, 40, 43, 58, 

329 
Marlowe, Christopher, 175 
Marston, John, 175 
Martial, 79, 82 
Martyn, John, 136 
Massinger, PhiHp, 104, 175, 245, 

247, 248, 249 
Mausoleum, 13, 17 
Mead, Richard, 121, 193, 200, 

259, 286, 290, 328 
Mears, WiUiam, 115 
Measure for Measure, 187 
Memoirs of Scriblerus, 141 
Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh, 20, 

23,30 
Menaechmi, 176, 189 
Menander, 47, 71, 324 
Merchant of Venice, 64 
Merlin, 26 
Merry Wives of Windsor, 185, 278, 

282, 283, 308 



INDEX 



361 



Metamorphoses, 11, 16 
Middleton, Conyers, 5, 202, 334 
Midsummer's Night's Dream, 86, 

207 
Miller, James, 137, 337 
MQton, John, 14, 50, 87, 142-145, 

168-170, 173, 195, 217, 221, 225, 

229, 234, 236, 237, 278, 299, 
300, 327 

Mirrour, 119 

Miscellaneous Observations upon 

Authors, 152, 198, 202 
Miscellanies (Pope and Swift's) 

108, 113 
Miscellany on Taste, 149, 150 
Mist's Journal, 106, 111, 113, 118, 

120, 122, 127, 128 
Moliere, 337 

Montague, Lady M. W., 193, 313 
Moore, John, 275 
Moore-Smythe, James, 101, 111, 

135, 136, 274 
Morell, Thomas, 22 
Morris, Bezaleel, 135 
Morte D' Arthur, 239 
Mosley, Humphrey, 104 
Mr. Rich's Answer, 28 
Much Ado About Nothing, 87, 90, 

230, 260 
Muretus, 32 
Musaeus, 20 

Necromancer, 24 

Newcastle, Duke of, 212, 345, 346 

New Memoirs of Milton, 227 

Newton, Thomas, 235-237 

NiccoH, 32 

North's Plutarch, 23, 167, 188 

Oldfield, Mrs. A., 276 
Observations on Macbeth, 250 



Observations on the Faerie Qtteen«, 

238 
Odyssey, 5, 8, 9, 19, 113 
Oedipus Coloneus, 5 
Oedipus Tyrannu^, 3, 5, 6 
Of False Taste, 149, 294 
Of Verbal Criticism, 145, 170 
Oldisworth, William, 256, 257 
Oldmixon, John, 111 
On the Delicacy of Friendship, 146 
Orestes, 148, 151, 272 
Orpheus, 28 

Orpheus and Eurydice, 23, 27 
Orrery, Earl of (Charles Boyle) 

13, 36, 79, 178, 220, 298, 307 
Orrery, Earl of (John Boyle), 147, 

155, 159, 194, 198, 289, 298, 301, 

307, 312, 326, 327, 333 
Othello, 67, 68, 185, 288, 313 
Ovid, 13, 79 

Pan and Syrinx, 26 
Paradise Lost, 235, 341 
Parnell, Thomas, 18, 19 
Paterculus, 199, 210, 301, 306, 

307, 310, 317, 322, 325 
Pearce, Zachary, 143, 198, 235, 

299 
Peck, Francis, 227 
PeUet, Thomas, 259 
Perfidious Brother, 21, 130 
Pericles, 185, 272 
Perseus and Andromeda, 23, 26 
Persian Princess, 2, 21, 130 
Phaedo, 2, 130 
Phaedrus, 48 
Pharsalia, 6, 12 
Philips, Ambrose, 109 
Philoctetes, 5, 7 
Philemon, 47, 71 
Pindar, 15 



362 



INDEX 



Platonius, 199, 283 

Plutus, 9 

Poggio, 31 

Politian, 31 

Pope, 7, 8, 12, 16-18, 20, 29, 53, 
61, 63, 65, 66, 81, 86, 88, 93, 
94, 98, 103, 107-118, 120-122, 
124, 126, 128, 130-132, 134, 
136, 138, 146, 148-150, 154, 
157-160, 169, 171, 179, 180, 
182, 185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 
204, 205, 211, 215, 217-219, 
225-227, 237, 244, 250, 251, 
265, 275, 282, 284, 289, 295, 
306, 313, 324, 338, 339, 341 

Porson, Richard, 60, 146, 203 

Prevost, , 323 

Prior, Mathew, 237 

Promus and Cassandra, 187, 282 

Pulteney, WilUam, 109 

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 185, 242, 243 
Ralph, James, 117, 118 
Rape of Lucrece, 325 
Rape of Proserpine. 24, 26 
Reed, Isaac, 104 "^^ 
Remarks on Macbeth, 231 
Remarks on Mr. Pope's Rape of 

the Lock, 116 
Remarks on the Dunciad, 3, 116, 

238 
Remarks on Spenser's Poems, 222 
Review of the Text of Milton's 

Paradise Lost, 143 
Rich, John, 24-30, 66, 152, 298 
Richard II, 22, 67 
Richardson, Samuel, 193, 236 
Rival Modes, 274 
RobortelH, 32 
Rockingham, Earl of, 1 
Romeo and Juliet, 112, 230 



Roome, Edward, 111, 135, 136 
Rowe, Nicholas, 6, 7, 62, 109, 

170, 217, 218, 225, 267 
Russel, , 136 

Saint Evremond, 52 

Savage, Richard, 135, 136 

Sawney, 117 

Saxo Grammaticus, 123, 187 

Scaliger, JuUus Caesar, 32, 34, 36, 
308 

Select Collection of Old Plays, 
245 

Sermon against Adultery, 140 

Seven Captains against Thebes, 3 

Seward, Thomas, 212-214, 221, 
223, 245 

Sewell, George, 20, 161 

Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony 
Cooper), 53 

Shakespeare Restored, 3, 4, 30, 47, 
64, 71, 72, 84, 85, 89, 91, 99, 
100, 107, 116, 118, 119, 123, 
128, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 
143, 149, 172, 175, 177, 178, 
183, 209, 219, 221, 222, 227, 
230, 231, 240, 252, 273, 276 

Shepherd's Calendar, 244 

Shirley, James, 104 

Sidney, Philip, 242-243 

Skelton, John, 231 

Sloane, Sir Hans, 5, 121, 193, 201, 
335 

Soliman and Perseda, 174 

Some account of Horace's Be- 
haviour, 55, 254, 257 

Sondres, Viscount, 2 

Sophocles, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 
68 

Spenser, Edmund, 16, 95, 174, 
175, 218, 229, 234, 237-244 



INDEX 



363 



Stanley, Thomas, 5, 201, 325, 332, 

334 
Statius, 42, 84, 199 
Stowe, John, 175 
Suidas, 152, 199, 268 
Surrey, Earl of, 175 
Swift, Jonathan, 115, 118, 137, 

196 
Sympson, , 212, 213, 245 

Taylor, John, 193, 198 

Taylor, Robert, 278, 283, 293, 312, 

322 
Tempest, 107, 185, 207 
Theocritus, 11 
Thirlby, Styvan, 48, 70, 141, 193, 

198, 220, 285 
Three Destructions of Troy, 23, 107 
Tickell, Thomas, 8 
Timon of Athens, 23, 107, 184, 262 
Titus Andronicus, 90, 186, 187 
Tonson, Jacob, 151, 156-160, 

163, 212, 217, 218, 220, 235, 

265, 274, 277, 284, 290 
Trachiniae, 5 
Troilus and Cressida, 23, 64, 83, 

107, 175, 177, 188, 288 
Turnbull, George, 146 
Tusculans, 39 
Twelfth Night, 65 
Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, 137 
Two Gentlemen of Verona, 65 
Two Noble Kinsmen, 186 
Tyrconnel, Earl of, 159, 305, 307, 

310 

Upton, John, 193, 198, 222, 228, 
235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244, 250 
Useful Transactions, 257 

Vaillant, Paul, 323, 337, 341 



Valla, Laurentius, 32 

Vanderput, P., 295 

Venv^ and Adonis, 15, 325, 330 

Victorinus, 32 

Virgil, 79, 84, 93, 130, 313 

Virgilius Restauratus, 57 

Voltaire, 119 

Walpole, Robert, 147, 148, 198, 
310, 335, 336, 342 

Warburton, WilUam, 12, 43, 60, 
57, 101, 106, 107, 125, 134, 136, 
142, 144, 146-148, 150-154, 
156-158, 161-168, 170, 174, 
176, 182-184, 188, 193-197, 
200-204, 206-209, 211, 226, 
236, 249, 258, 259 

Warton, Thomas, 238-240,1243, 
244, 251 

Wasse, Joseph, 40, 198 

Weaver, John, 23, 25 

Webster, John, 175 

Welsted, Leonard, 109, 135, 136, 
150, 295 

Whalley, Peter, 222, 223, 228, 246, 
247 

What D'ye Call It, 16, 19 

Wheler, Sir George, 199, 200, 
318, 319 

Whiston, WiUiam, 336 

Winter's Tale, 112 

Works of Ben Jonson, 218 

Wotton, WiUiam, 53 

Wyat, Sir Thomas, 175 

Wycherly, WiUiam, 123 

Wynken de Worde, 107, 176, 188, 
239 

Yonge, WiUiam, 319 
Young, Edward 137, 193 
Young, WiUiam, 9, 10 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 

Columbia University in the City of New York 




The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publi- 
cation of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, 
related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its 
Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of 
Columbia University shall be President of the Press. 

The publications of the Columbia University Press include 
works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, 
Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series: 

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. 

Columbia University Biological Series. 

Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects. 

Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. 

Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. 

Columbia University Studies in English. 

Columbia University Geological Series. 

Columbia University Germanic Studies. 

Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. 

Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and 
Philology. 

Columbia University Oriental Studies. 

Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Liter- 
ature. 

Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. 

Adams Lectures. Carpentier Lectures. 

Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. 

Blumenthal Lectures. Jesup Lectures. 

Catalogues will be sent free on application. 



LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 

30-32 East 20th St., NEW YORK 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 



STUDIES IN ENGLISH 

Joseph Glanvill. By Ferris Greenslet, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 

xi + 235. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Elizabethan Lyric. By John Erskine, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 

xvi + 344. Price, $1.50 net. 
Classical Echoes in Tennyson. By Wilfred P. Mustard, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 12mo, pp. xvi + 164. Price, $1.25 net. 
Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. By Margaret Ball, Ph.D. 

Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 188. Price, $1.00 net. 
The Early American Novel. By Lillie Deminq Loshe, Ph.D. Paper, 

8vo, pp. vii + 131. Price, $1.00 net. 
Studies in New England Transcendentalism. By Harold C. God- 

DARD, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 217. Price, $1.00 net. 
A Study of Shelley's Drama " The Cenci." By Ernest Sutherland 

Bates, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. ix + 103. Price, $1.00 net. 
Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance. By Samuel Marion 

Tucker, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 245. Price, $1.00 net. 
The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in 

English. By Jacob Zeitlin, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 177. 

Price, $1.00 net. 
Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. By Virginia 

Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 259. 

Price, $1.25 ne<. 
The Stage History of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third. By 

Alice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 186. Price, 

$1.25 nei. 
The Shaksperian Stage. By Victor E. Albright, Ph.D. Cloth, 

8vo, pp. xii + 194. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 
Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature. By Frederic W. Roe, 

Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 152. Price, $1.25 net. 
Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley, and Keats. By Bar- 

nette Miller, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 169. Price, $1.25 net. 
The Authorship of Timon of Athens. By Ernest Hunter Wright 

Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 104. Price, $1.25 net. 
English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By Frank H. Ristine, 

Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. XV + 247. Price, $1.50 net. 
John Dennis. His Life and Criticism. By Harry G. Paul, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 8vo, pp. viii + 229. Portrait. Price, $1.25 net. 
The Rise of the Novel of Manners. By Charlotte E. Morgan, 

Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 271. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Political Prophecy in England. By Rupert Taylor, Ph.D. 

Cloth, Svo, pp. XX + 165. Price, $1.25 net. 
The Middle English Penitential Lyric. By Frank Allen Patterson, 

Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. ix + 203. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. By Morris LeRoy Arnold, Ph.D. 

Cloth, Svo, pp. X + 177. Price, $1.25 net. 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 East 20th Street New York 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 



The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of Eng- 
land. By Joseph Albert Mosher, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 
xi + 150. Price, $1.25 net. 

New Poems by James I. of England. Edited by Allan F. Westcott, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xci + 121. Price, $1.50 net 

Thomas Dekker. A Study. By Mary Leland Hunt, Ph.D. Cloth, 
8vo, pp. xiii + 212. Price, $1.25 net. 

Mathew Carey. Editor, Author and PubUsher. By Earl L. Bradsher, 
Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. xi -f 144. Price, $1.25 net. 
(This series is continued under the title " Studies in English and 
Comparative Literature ") 



STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 

Romances of Roguery. By Frank Wadleigh Chandler, Ph.D. Part I. 

The Picaresque Novel in Spain. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix+ 483. Price, 

$2.00 net. 
A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. By Joel Elias 

Spingarn, Ph.D. Second edition, revised and augmented. Cloth, 

12mo, pp. xi + 350. Price, $1.50 net. 
The ItaUan Renaissance in England. Studies. By Lewis Einstein, 

Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xvii+ 420. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 
Platonism in English Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen- 
turies. By John Smith Harrison, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 

xi + 235. Price, $2.00 net. 
Irish Life in Lrish Fiction. " By Horatio Sheafe Krans, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 12mo, pp. vii + 338. Price, $1.50 net. 
The English Heroic Play. By Lewis Nathaniel Chase, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 12mo, pp. xii + 250. Price, $2.00 net. 
The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century. By 

Martha Pike Conant, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xxvi + 312. 

Price, $2.00 net. 
The French Influence in English Literature. By Alfred Horatio 

Upham, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 560. Price, $2.00 net. 
The Influence of Moliere on Restoration Comedy. By Dudley H. 

Miles, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi + 272. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction. By Samuel 

Lee Wolff, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 529. Price, $2.00 net. 
Idylls of Fishermen. By Henry Marion Hall, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, 

pp. xiii + 220. Price, $1.50 net. 



ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 

Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. 
Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse. By Claude M. Fuess, Ph.D. 

Pp. xi + 228. Price, $1.25 net. 
Spenser's '* Shepherd's Calender " in Relation to Contemporary 

Afifairs. By James Jackson Higginson, Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 364. 

Price, $1.50 net. 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 East 20th Street New York 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 



The Commedia deirArte. A Study in Italian Popular Comedy. By 

Winifred Smith, Ph.D. Pp. xv + 290. Illustrated. Price, $2.00 net. 
Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, 1704-1750. By Elizabeth 

Christine Cook, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 279. Price, $1.50 net. 
Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship in Great Britain 

and the United States. By Harrison R. Steeves, Ph.D. Pp. 

xiv + 245. Price, $1.50 net. 
Aaron Hill. Poet, Dramatist, Projector. By Dorothy Brewster, 

Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 300. Portrait. Price, $1.50 net. 
Chaucer and the Roman de la Rose. By Dean Spruill Fansler, 

Ph.D. Pp. xi + 269. Price, $1.50 net. 
Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon. By Blanche Colton Williams, 

Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 171. Frontispiece. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Relations of Shirley's Plays to the Elizabethan Drama. By 

Robert S. Forsythe, Ph.D. Pp. xiv + 483. Price, $2.00 net. 
The Ballade. By Helen Louise Cohen, Ph.D. Pp. xix + 397. 

Price, $1.75 net. 
The Life and Romances of Mrs. Eliza Haywood. By George F. 

WEIGHER, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 210. Price, $1.50 net. 
Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama. By Victor O. Freeburq, 

Ph.D. Pp. xi + 241. Price, $1.50 net. 
Robert Greene. By John Clark Jordan, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 231. 

Price, $1.50 net. 
Froissart and the English Chronicle Play. By Robert M. Smith, 

Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 165. Price, $1.50 net. 
Mary Astell. By Florence M. Smith, Ph.D. Pp. ix + 193. Price, 

$1.50 net. 
St. Jean de Crevecoeur. By Julia Post Mitchell, Ph.D. Pp. 

xvii + 362. Price, $1.50 net. 
American Literature in Spain. By John DeLancey Ferguson, 

Ph.D. Pp. viii + 267. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Rhythm of Prose. By William Morrison Patterson, Ph.D. 

Second Edition. Pp. xxiii + 193. Price, $1.50 net. 
English Domestic Relations, 1487-1653. By Chilton Latham 

Powell, Ph.D. Pp. xii + 274. Price, $1.50 net. 
The Mystic Vision in the Grail Legend and in the Divine Comedy. 

By Lizette Andrews Fisher, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 148. Illustrated. 

Price, $1.50 net. 
The Early Life of Robert Southey, 1774-1803. By William Haller, 

Ph.D. Pp. xi + 353. Price, $1.75 net. 
English Translations from the Greek. A Bibliographical Survey. By 

FiNLEY M. K. Foster, Ph.D. Pp. xxix + 146. Price, $1.50 net. 
Lewis Theobald. His Contribution to English Scholarship. With 

some Unpublished Letters. By Richard Foster Jones, Ph.D. 

Pp. xi + 363. Price, $2.00 net. 
Vergil and the English Poets. By Elizabeth Nitchie, Ph.D. In press. 
Dickens, Reade, and Collins, Sensation Novelists. By Walter C. 

Phillips, Ph.D. In press. 
A Study of the Newe Metamorphosis, Written by J. M., Gent., i6oo. 

By John Henry Hobart Lyon, Ph.D. In press. 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 East 20th Street New York 



~»J^ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2009 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






M^ 



